Some politics we might be able to agree on.

[imaeditedbysowulo]

Mmmm I'm a bit bemused by all this 'outrage' ... we have exactly these laws already here, its called compulsory purchase ..

Here our goverment/councils (that's our local government level) generally use it for the good of the common community - forcing re-development of slum areas, positioning hospitals in better places, putting in new & relief roads etc - sure every project mightn't go ahead as planned or intended, but as long as folks compulsoraly purchased are paid for their land etc - what's the problem ?

Is this notion of social collectiveness a bit too damn liberal for all you guys on the other side of the pond ?

If there is a good social reason for it which benefits the community, then I have no problem with it. However, from what I understand of the bill is that they don't need a good reason. They can do it for any reason they see fit. One person should not be able to hold up an entire project for ransom, but this bill is just wrong. There's a reason we fought against you blokes across the pond way back when.

As common-place as kickbacks are in today's world, I personally don't trust any gov't official as far as I can throw them, therefore giving them unlimited powers such as these is not a good thing in my book.

[Titchski]

Ed, thats exactly what "Eminent Domain" is currently. However, there's a world of difference between the local legislature seizing land to build a park (its still not there yet - I checked on the way home) and them seizing it to turn around and give it to Walmart to build a store - or indeed, as has also happened here, to turn around and give the land to a large scale property developer to put a different house on that land. The bills currently under discussion will toss any social collectiveness aside and replace it with corporate expansion.

Cheers
.

[Archer]

I think the tree huggers of this world may take umbridge with you there Confus_ed.
Compensation [money] however much does not replace ownership or ones own intent for the future of the land be it to lay fallow or to pass on to the next generation.As you will note many of the green belts around Britain seem to be encroached upon by change of use with council approved developments on a daily basis many supposed reasons given i.e. the need for new housing or industrial parks.

[confus-ed]

Well I'm all for a bit of flipping population control to stop us having to munch all the planet to live in & make a mess of .. so now I'm confus-ed again as I can't figure out if I'm Liberal, Green or some kind of Neo-Nazi by advocating general population control like they have in China ! - Hang on .. they are Communists !

I think its one of those 'like it or not, you gotta have some' thingees, if local government can't control planning & development to promote industrial & income producing growth you are dis-advantaging the whole for the sake of the few ..

I think 'everyones' general mis-trust of the political process (Corruption/ Spin / Lies ! all that jazz..) is reflecting on what in 'theory' is a good idea - I'll leave the judgement of the 'implemtation' (so the actual law that gets produced 'eventually' after its been revised & re-revised & all that) to those folks who'll actually get affected by it ..

[silencio]

Mmmm I'm a bit bemused by all this 'outrage' ... we have exactly these laws already here, its called compulsory purchase ..

Here our goverment/councils (that's our local government level) generally use it for the good of the common community - forcing re-development of slum areas, positioning hospitals in better places, putting in new & relief roads etc - sure every project mightn't go ahead as planned or intended, but as long as folks compulsoraly purchased are paid for their land etc - what's the problem ?

Is this notion of social collectiveness a bit too damn liberal for all you guys on the other side of the pond ?

So you're saying that taking someones land in order to build a walmart is justified based on it's social merits?

[silencio]

Why can't businesses bid for the land like they used to?

[noone]

Mmmm I'm a bit bemused by all this 'outrage' ... we have exactly these laws already here, its called compulsory purchase ..

Here our goverment/councils (that's our local government level) generally use it for the good of the common community - forcing re-development of slum areas, positioning hospitals in better places, putting in new & relief roads etc - sure every project mightn't go ahead as planned or intended, but as long as folks compulsoraly purchased are paid for their land etc - what's the problem ?

Is this notion of social collectiveness a bit too damn liberal for all you guys on the other side of the pond ?

I've seen how it can work right. I live near a huge paper/carbon/chemical plant. The company wanted to expand, the city offered to use emenint domain, and those officials were removed from office next election by the people who didn't want to move. The company went on to pay what the owners asked, mostly because no one else wanted to move in next to a smelly paper mill. One house still sits in the middle of expanding parking lots, cause the owner won't leave. But the mill got the land they needed. I don't think the city have to 'claim' any of the land, but it all started before I could vote so the details aren't clear.

The problem isn't that the government might take the land and do some good with it, it's that they take the land to make money. If some store wants to build a mall, the store should buy the land from the land owner. Under these proposed laws, the store could get some city officials to side with them (bribe), and then buy the land for the cities 'fair' price instead of the owners asking price. If the land isn't being used at all, maybe the city has some right to step in. But there are cases of peoples houses being taken, and the price the city gives them might not even cover the costs. Sure, rebuild slums and make the hospital more accessable. But don't take my house cause some yuppie wants a starbucks on this block instead of the next, cause their SUV only gets 2 gallons per mile.

[confus-ed]

So you're saying that taking someones land in order to build a walmart is justified based on it's social merits?

I think others make this point too, but this ones a one liner so I'll answer that

So I think we can all see that if we want to build an orphanage or a hospital or a new road or whatever then that's 'good for all' (or most) so we pretty much can see the sense in that ..

But yeah why are we 'forcing folks to sell' when its a big development for Walmart or Woolworths or whoever the hell - well Jobs that's why - so like I said earlier when it gets to this kind of thing you actually have to trust politicians to make the right decisions (yeah I know that's taking a 'punt'), & 'due process' needs to fire 'fairly' & it all be for the 'common good' - sure I can see loads of holes in any practical application, we have abuses of this all the time here, but in 'theory' its the right way, we as a culture are far too carried away with the rights of the one, over the rights of many ...

[techs]

About 30 years ago Macy's Department store wanted to build their second store on a stretch of Queens Boulevard in New York City. They purchased two full blocks by buying out all the small homes and businesses on those blocks. The area along the boulevard was fast changing from business/residential to all business. One homeowner refused to sell. He had the corner lot at one end of Queens Boulevard. Macy's built the store without his land. They built a very unusual completely circular store. With this lone house still standing. I remember it so vividly. Within a few months the homeowner had to put a fence around his house to keep people off his property. About 10-15 years later he finally sold (or passed away) and a bank opened on the site. I remember my dad explaining to me how Macys couldn't force hime to sell his home. They offered the guy big bucks but he still wouldn't sell. I always admired him. I also felt on some level(though I didn't know it) that this was America because you owned what you owned and you had rights. No one could just take it from you. Years later when I learned about Eminent Domain it was that the government in exceptional circumstances could buy your home for things like roads, bridges, etc. The fact that no one could take this guys house was reassuring to me. It looks like everything has now changed. And not for the better.

[confus-ed]

I like what Techs just had to say ... but lets say the guy was Bill Gates & he was just being bloody awkward for the sake of it ..

Any smpathy/empathy then ? ... well a whole load less at the very least ..

[paraflyer]

you actually have to trust politicians to make the right decisions [/B](yeah I know that's taking a 'punt'), & 'due process' needs to fire 'fairly' & it all be for the 'common good' - sure I can see loads of holes in any practical application, we have abuses of this all the time here, but in 'theory' its the right way, we as a culture are far too carried away with the rights of the one, over the rights of many ...

Jobs? No, it $$$$. The jobs that Walmart pumps out aren't much better than working at the local McDonald's. The only reason for that Walmart (or whatever) being built is the potential tax base....since everyone wants to buy cheap goods, it's a given the store will make money.

As far as the "rights of the one vs. the rights of the many", well..... I still do not buy into the herd mentality of "what's good for most should be good for all", especially when those making the decisions have a strong tendancy to exempt themselves from the laws and policy they make.

[silencio]

Let's be real. The only use for this bill is to circumvent a capitalist process. If a developer wants to pay me twice what my property is worth I'm going to sell it. So are most people. Some of those people may demand more. Why don't they deserve it? Where business is concerned supply and demand should rule. It will certainly rule whenever I want to buy a product from that business in the future. When the price of chicken goes up at walmart because of a mad cow scare you don't see walmart cutting into their profit margin and lowing the price of chicken for the public good.

All this bill does is allow large businesses to use the government to steal from the individual and erode his or her rights in the name of the public good.

[jitBob]

Why doesn't the governor of Florida step in? Oh wait, whats' his name again?

[jitBob]

...
Is this notion of social collectiveness a bit too damn liberal for all you guys on the other side of the pond ?

Yes.

Social collectiveness = low medical payments, sky high taxes.

[paraflyer]

Yes.

Social collectiveness = low medical payments, sky high taxes.

You forgot to add "...and still wait forever to see a doctor"