Some politics we might be able to agree on.

**silencio** · April 27th, 2004, 11:27 AM

This is a clip from Boortz. The subject is private property and governments right to seize it from one person and give it to another for the purpose of generating more tax dollars for local government. This is happening all around the country and it's wrong. It's bad enough when a retiree has to sell his land or home because he can't afford the escalating costs of local property taxes (as a function of time and inflation) but, this "notion" of eliminating property rights completely is unheard of and further indication that goverment just keeps taking and taking and taking.

Here's the clip. See the site for the full text.

Print this out ... go warm up a cup of coffee .. then come back and read this. I'm furious. Frightened and furious. So mad, in fact, that I could literally spin around on my eyebrows and spit wooden nickels. You heard me talk about it yesterday. Hell ... you heard me rant about it yesterday, then finish with a promise that I would put my thoughts in the Nuze for you to do with as you please.
The issue? Two bills, essentially identical; one making its way through the Florida House, the other in the Florida Senate. The House bill is HB 1513, sponsored by Rep. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from the Stuart area. She's a former government school teacher. Her House office number is 850-488-8749. The Senate Bill is SB 2548, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bennett, another Republican. Bennett is from the Bradenton area. His Senate phone number is 850-487-5078.

OK .. so what's the big deal? Both HB1513 and SB2548 would give to local Florida governments the power to take property away from an individual landowner and sell it to a private developer for a shopping center, office development, or virtually any other private purpose. This legislation would allow any local government in Florida to seize private property and hand it over to a private developer for no other reason than to increase the amount of money the local government could get from that piece of property by way of real estate taxes. The government's responsibility to the land owner? To pay the owner a "fair" price. Fair .. as determined by the government. Isn't this just great? Two Republicans showing us all that the Republican Party is the party of freedom and property rights. And you wonder why I'm a Libertarian?

**paraflyer** · April 27th, 2004, 11:30 AM

They should also include in those bills that the politician's homes would be the first to go, with the public to decide on the "fair price".

"Eminent Domain" abuse is rampant; it's a concept that needs to go out the window, along with mmost of those in office.

Free country, my ***.

**jitBob** · April 27th, 2004, 11:35 AM

"It ain't paradise, put up a parking lot"

**Camaro80z** · April 27th, 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by jitBob

"It ain't paradise, put up a parking lot"

I think you mean " They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Is it in reference to the remake of the old folk song done by the counting crows? Not trying to stir things up, just trying to make my WOTPP relevant.

**paraflyer** · April 27th, 2004, 11:48 AM

Not quite on topic, but another reason for Libertarianism, and the abolishment of questionable "social programs":

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7649

**jitBob** · April 27th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Camaro80z

I think you mean " They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Is it in reference to the remake of the old folk song done by the counting crows? Not trying to stir things up, just trying to make my WOTPP relevant.

No, I don't and the song was originally written and sung by Joni Mitchell who also wrote another song that was wonderfully covered by Crosby, Stills and Nash. Can you guess it?

**hudsonsmith** · April 27th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by jitBob

No, I don't and the song was originally written and sung by Joni Mitchell who also wrote another song that was wonderfully covered by Crosby, Stills and Nash. Can you guess it?

woodstock

**jitBob** · April 27th, 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by hudsonsmith

woodstock

Excellent!

Back to the topic.
It seems to be a consistent fact of the current government to test the boundries of existing laws. I thought that the laws on the books were to prevent one hot head from stopping or stalling a public works project like a freeway. The government would sieze the property and give the owner whatever value they assign to it. Even $1.00. On the face of it this appears to go far beyond the publics good and into big business greed.

**Camaro80z** · April 27th, 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by jitBob

No, I don't and the song was originally written and sung by Joni Mitchell who also wrote another song that was wonderfully covered by Crosby, Stills and Nash. Can you guess it?

I wasn't sure of the spelling of her first name, and I did not want to butcher it.

I do think that this is a way that the law can be overreaching. My question is this: If it was not done by the government, who would be the best to have value the property? Also, how would it be possible to set it up so that the politicians can not overstep their bounds?

**paraflyer** · April 27th, 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Camaro80z

If it was not done by the government, who would be the best to have value the property? Also, how would it be possible to set it up so that the politicians can not overstep their bounds?

Consult a variety of local Real Estate dealers?

As for the second question, merely exercise your Second Amendment rights, as originally intended (NOT current interpretations).

**hudsonsmith** · April 27th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Camaro80z

I wasn't sure of the spelling of her first name, and I did not want to butcher it.

I do think that this is a way that the law can be overreaching. My question is this: If it was not done by the government, who would be the best to have value the property? Also, how would it be possible to set it up so that the politicians can not overstep their bounds?

The specifics of this vary from state to state, however, the law generally requires the government to obtain an appraisal of the property prepared by a 3rd party. Often, the property owner will obtain their own appraisal and the "fair compensation" becomes the subject of litigation.

In practice, it is often the purpose rather than the amount of compensation which is at issue in eminent domain and condemnation cases. That is, the law requires the government to have a valid "public purpose" to take the property. The arguments start when the government cites "economic development" or "urban renewal" as the purpose. Such is the case in Times Square in Manhattan. At the time the taking was approved, Times Square was the pits and in need of renewal. However now, 20 years later, while there is little need for the government to get involved in new development, they continue to take the remaining properties.

**ilovetheusers** · April 27th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Anyone get the feeling that the democrat and republican parties will find them selves replaced by libertarian and green parties (or something like them) some time in our lifetimes?

**Titchski** · April 27th, 2004, 04:26 PM

These bills are really, really getting people in a twist here in SW Florida (quite rightly so).

Eminent Domain has been and is being used here in really, really underhand ways. I know of one bloke who just finished building his nice, new $300,000-ish house only for our local branch of the Nazi Party, sorry esteemed Council, to decide they needed his house as they were going to build a park. Well, 18 months later, guess what. No park and no sign of one either due to the park being voted down by residents. However, the land grab is still going on...

I'm sorry for saying this, as I think the American Ideals are wonderful in theory, but if Paul Revere could see what's happened to the Land of the Free... he'd have shot his bloody horse, not ridden it all night.

**imaeditedbysowulo** · April 27th, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by ilovetheusers

Anyone get the feeling that the democrat and republican parties will find them selves replaced by libertarian and green parties (or something like them) some time in our lifetimes?

No. I believe that their hold on our country is waaaaaay too strong for that to happen anytime soon (75 years let's say). All the medium sized businesses were bought out in the 90's. It seems that companies are either very very large or very small and on the verge of shutting down or being bought out.

It's my opinion that corporations are killing our country. Our gov't is the epitome of the corporate world. Instead of firing someone for not doing there job, we create a whole new agency or department to do that one specific function.

**confus-ed** · April 27th, 2004, 05:27 PM

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 ?