anything for the public good. Socalism at it's finest.Originally Posted by RedCoKid
Yes they both should, but since they are both firmly planted in the rectums of corporate America they won't do a damn thing.Originally Posted by diffusionx
anything for the public good. Socalism at it's finest.Originally Posted by RedCoKid
More reason for a green party.Originally Posted by RedCoKid
"Your soul better belong to Jesus, mmm-mmmmm..... cause your ass belongs to me!"
Yeah this is one of the biggest "Fuck you america/constitution" by the supreme court I have ever heard of. Bacically now if some asshole housing development wants Joe Farmer to hand him his land, he just has to cry to goverment that the land would be better off for homes than this guys farm. Basically you CAN'T own your land anymore, if someone comes up with a better reason to own it than you, they can take it. Its fucking Commie bullshit to the highest red alert I can think of. FUCKING MARXIST!!!!!
Barf! Barf! Barf!
This isn't going to have a happy ending...
Giving away someone's home (perhaps childhood) is hilarious on paper, or in a comedy, but in reality is reprehensible. It's not about the money for children forced out of their home, because in all likelyhood they won't ever see a penny of it. Children like familiarity and safety, so uprooting can be traumatic (although not as traumatic as moving to an entirely different city as opposed to down the street) This is how I feel about the issue if the house is taken away so some corporate goon can drive a better looking car.
It's another issue if the city needs to build something in your place like a school. If this is the case then, while unfortunate, you need to look at the bigger picture. The school, or hospital is going to service hundreds and thousands of people. Nobody can deny them this because they are attached to their bedroom walls. I know I'd be pissed off and upset if it happened to me, but when I cooled down reason would set in and I'd see how it's for the better of the community. Society has need that are above your own.
Originally Posted by rezo
Originally Posted by diffusionx
![]()
In every case I know of, 'proper compensation' has generally equalled less than 50% of the real property value.
In any case, the Supreme Court is absolutely out of control and has been for quite some time now. A real check and balance needs to be put into place.
To boldly go where lots of men have gone before...
50%, what are you basing that on?
As far as I know they have an appraisal done on your house by a complete third party, which usually prices your house a little bit above average and you're bought out. I've never heard of someone getting shafted for 50% of their homes worth. Especially since homes usually don't DOUBLE in value by the time you sell anyway (meaning they can't make you take a loss if you bought the house for 120k. You're going to be making more than 120k on the close).
I'm not 100% and I'm not saying you're wrong. I just want to read articles or news about people getting shafted to that degree.
Originally Posted by rezo
I thought it took three sources: One brought in by the government, one by an independent third party, and one that you furnish. The price paid would be the average of the three, and the usual mentality is that your guy is gonna give you the highest price possible, the government appraiser is gonna go as low as possible, and the third guy is gonna be somewhere in between.Originally Posted by Andrew
Bookmarks