YES Network.com

MLB NBA
MLB NBA
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics Does Texas Want To Become Part Of Mexico Again?
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Does Texas Want To Become Part Of Mexico Again?
2 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 12:44PM #31
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 4,014

Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Demonseed wrote:



My point is people can't have it both ways.  If you think about many of the laws concerning individual property rights, no one seems to have an issue with the State intervening when someone is running criminal operations on their property, when they let their property become a hazard, or if the property falls into disarray.  If we want the State to have that type of responsibility, it is not a stretch for them to interpret eminent domain in the way they have. 


The entire argument of the sanctity of property rights would have to be rethought to eliminate the State from the equation, while this particular ruling may seem to have far reaching implications, I do not feel it has been used to overtly abuse eminent domain towards the end of making this an issue of great concern.  In the sense that I don't think developers would have the confidence to rely on the ruling to automatically win the legal opposition to them. 




You may be inadvertently forcing others to reevaluate what they thought was reasonable to do to the property of others.  It's easy for neighbors or a community to unite and tell someone what they can do with their private property, who they can sell to, or how it can be used but we must keep in mind that if we can be that arbitrary then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

2 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 12:54PM #32
61in61
Posts: 18,446

Dec 5, 2012 -- 12:44PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Demonseed wrote:



My point is people can't have it both ways.  If you think about many of the laws concerning individual property rights, no one seems to have an issue with the State intervening when someone is running criminal operations on their property, when they let their property become a hazard, or if the property falls into disarray.  If we want the State to have that type of responsibility, it is not a stretch for them to interpret eminent domain in the way they have. 


The entire argument of the sanctity of property rights would have to be rethought to eliminate the State from the equation, while this particular ruling may seem to have far reaching implications, I do not feel it has been used to overtly abuse eminent domain towards the end of making this an issue of great concern.  In the sense that I don't think developers would have the confidence to rely on the ruling to automatically win the legal opposition to them. 




You may be inadvertently forcing others to reevaluate what they thought was reasonable to do to the property of others.  It's easy for neighbors or a community to unite and tell someone what they can do with their private property, who they can sell to, or how it can be used but we must keep in mind that if we can be that arbitrary then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.




Laws or regulations that protect the populace from harzards or crime is not the same as confiscating property from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen just because that second citizen has a "better" use for the property.

2 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 1:11PM #33
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 4,014

Dec 5, 2012 -- 12:54PM, 61in61 wrote:


Laws or regulations that protect the populace from harzards or crime is not the same as confiscating property from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen just because that second citizen has a "better" use for the property.




Don't kid yourself.  When a community decides that they are going to zone out certain usage from neighboring property they are claiming an authority over that property that they didn't negotiate and pay to acquire.  It's nice to say I don't want to lose my view or have commercial traffic around my property but really who are you to impose your will on that without actually acquiring a financial stake in the property?  Times change and if you don't own a controlling share of neighboring property it really isn't yours to say how it is to be used.  If people are conducting criminal activity from their property then the issue is the crime itself.  Should the punishment be to relinquish the property to a more desirable owner?  I think we both know the answer to that.  If we are going to do that then aren't we just "giving it to another private citizen just because that second citizen has a 'better' use for the property."

2 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 1:20PM #34
61in61
Posts: 18,446

Dec 5, 2012 -- 1:11PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Dec 5, 2012 -- 12:54PM, 61in61 wrote:


Laws or regulations that protect the populace from harzards or crime is not the same as confiscating property from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen just because that second citizen has a "better" use for the property.




Don't kid yourself.  When a community decides that they are going to zone out certain usage from neighboring property they are claiming an authority over that property that they didn't negotiate and pay to acquire.  It's nice to say I don't want to lose my view or have commercial traffic around my property but really who are you to impose your will on that without actually acquiring a financial stake in the property?  Times change and if you don't own a controlling share of neighboring property it really isn't yours to say how it is to be used.  If people are conducting criminal activity from their property then the issue is the crime itself.  Should the punishment be to relinquish the property to a more desirable owner?  I think we both know the answer to that.  If we are going to do that then aren't we just "giving it to another private citizen just because that second citizen has a 'better' use for the property."




I don't think that it is right for the government to confiscate a person's property because criminal activity was taking place on the property.My neighbor had her property seized because her son made improvements to the home using money from drug deals. It wasn't even the son's home, it was his mom's. She had to spend the last few years of her life in a nursing home. They also took his DeLorean that he parked in her garage, which really pissed me off, because I wanted it.

2 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 1:28PM #35
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 4,014

Dec 5, 2012 -- 1:20PM, 61in61 wrote:


They also took his DeLorean that he parked in her garage, which really pissed me off, because I wanted it.




Ironic, a car built with drug money bought with drug money.


We are on the same page with that but can you see what I am saying with zoning laws and ordinances?  People that say not in my back yard should stop and reflect if it should be in anyone else's for that matter, what made you so special?

2 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 8:02PM #36
61in61
Posts: 18,446

Dec 5, 2012 -- 1:28PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Dec 5, 2012 -- 1:20PM, 61in61 wrote:


They also took his DeLorean that he parked in her garage, which really pissed me off, because I wanted it.




Ironic, a car built with drug money bought with drug money.


We are on the same page with that but can you see what I am saying with zoning laws and ordinances?  People that say not in my back yard should stop and reflect if it should be in anyone else's for that matter, what made you so special?




I think its just human nature to not want something unpleasant in your backyard. You don't know the "other guy" so as long as you're happy the other guy is just someone in the abstract.


I lived in Houston a number of years and they don't have zoning laws per se. There are some general guidlines such as getting permits for a refinery and such which keeps them out of residential areas. But, in general zoning is very limited. You will see an auto salvage lot right next door to an upscale residential development. It seems to work well so I don't know if some of these zoning laws are really necessary. Contrast that to a city like Nashville where they get upset if your mailbox has to be of a certain size, shape and color.

2 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2012 - 8:43AM #37
Demonseed
Posts: 1,457

Dec 5, 2012 -- 12:44PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Dec 3, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Demonseed wrote:



My point is people can't have it both ways.  If you think about many of the laws concerning individual property rights, no one seems to have an issue with the State intervening when someone is running criminal operations on their property, when they let their property become a hazard, or if the property falls into disarray.  If we want the State to have that type of responsibility, it is not a stretch for them to interpret eminent domain in the way they have. 


The entire argument of the sanctity of property rights would have to be rethought to eliminate the State from the equation, while this particular ruling may seem to have far reaching implications, I do not feel it has been used to overtly abuse eminent domain towards the end of making this an issue of great concern.  In the sense that I don't think developers would have the confidence to rely on the ruling to automatically win the legal opposition to them. 




You may be inadvertently forcing others to reevaluate what they thought was reasonable to do to the property of others.  It's easy for neighbors or a community to unite and tell someone what they can do with their private property, who they can sell to, or how it can be used but we must keep in mind that if we can be that arbitrary then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.





Exactly.


It is easy for people to say we don't need the State to do all of these things, until it is your neighbor playing music at 150 Db's at 2am (just a random example). 

Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Jump Menu:
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics Does Texas Want To Become Part Of Mexico Again?
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum