The PBS program, <u>NOW</u>, covered this subject last night. You can check it out on their website: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

Even with it's running time cut from one hour to one helf hour, and Bill Moyers leaving, it it still one of the best programs on television, period!

Yeah Zap! 'til Tomlinson gets his hands on it!

I'll donate and I'll stay there. This is sweet:

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

I'll meet ya there Sis!

I was telling John about the Hotel while we were having our 5 A.M. before work cuppa tea and chat this morning Ceas............. and he said "Heck why don't you all go stake a claim on The BIG House in D.C.?"

Any suggestions for what we could build there?

I got this in e-mail. Even the right wingers are against this too:

This "Christian Response" e-Alert is a special message from RightMarch.com:

ALERT: Are you as OUTRAGED as I am about the Supreme Court's recent decision, allowing city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another? In "Kelo vs. City of New London", five Justices (led by David Souter) ruled that "eminent domain" allows any local government to TAKE anyone's private property if the government will generate greater tax revenue -- or any other economic benefits -- when the land is developed by the new owner.

If you AREN'T outraged, then you're not paying attention!

These black-robed dictators have now virtually destroyed individual property rights in the United States. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution AGAIN, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments have the "right" to seize private property to make way for private commercial development such as shopping malls.

You read that right. It doesn't matter if your family has lived in your home since you were 11 years old -- if the local government decides that they could make more tax dollars by putting in a mall, too bad for you and your family.

Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent to the ruling, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

But, the Supreme Court has spoken, so that's the end of it, right? Nothing can be done to expose this ruling for the TRAVESTY it really is, right?

WRONG. As a matter of fact, there IS something that can be done -- we can take this ruling to its logical conclusion, and show Justice Souter and his ilk who are sitting there in their ivory towers, far removed from us "common" folk, just what their "legal theories" are doing to US.

So, in keeping with what has now been deemed "constitutional", a private developer has contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire, asking that the property of the judge be seized to make room for a new hotel, to be named "The Lost Liberty Hotel".

According to WorldNetDaily.com, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

Ah, poetic justice is served. And YOU can help serve it to Justice Souter.

TAKE ACTION: This is not a prank. The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, Mr. Clements can begin his hotel development -- and we can begin the process of *reversing* this travesty of justice. He already plans to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

FINALLY, these tyrants in black can "face the music" and actually EXPERIENCE what they're putting the rest of us through! Click below now to send a message to all five members of the town of Weare's Board of Selectmen at once, asking them to see that "Justice Is Served" by implementing Souter's decision and putting a hotel on HIS property:
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7771381&type=CU

NOTE: Yes, like Clements, we're aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property. "I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WorldNet Daily. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help see that "Justice Is Served" in this outrageous decision to destroy private property rights! Thank you!

Sincerely,


William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

Cheryl, not all right-wingers are against it. This happened right here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has been much discussed again this week:

In light of the Supreme Court's validation last week of eminent domain, the government's license to usurp homeowners' property as it sees fit, it should be recalled that one beneficiary of this practice has been none other than George W. Bush.

As general managing partner of the Texas Rangers in the early 90's, Bush apparently had no problems with the city of Arlington using its powers to condemn land in order to make way for a stadium. A county court later found that the owners of this land were only paid about 20% of a fair price. Once the stadium turned the Rangers into a hot commodity, they were sold for a huge profit of which Bush personally gained over $10 million.

Notwithstanding Bush's occasional lip service to property rights on the campaign trail, this is one conservative value that seems unlikely to get much help from the White House.

Didn't realize not all conservatives were against this. I got that mail & thought it was interesting that the conservatives were agains it too...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by louise:

I was telling John about the Hotel while we were having our 5 A.M. before work cuppa tea and chat this morning Ceas............. and he said "Heck why don't you all go stake a claim on The BIG House in D.C.?"

Any suggestions for what we could build there?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
_____________________________________________

How about a fertilizer factory? Oh, wait! It's already one with all of the bullshit coming out of there!

IN keeping with the social history of this story:

"Imminent domain, isn't that where somebody bribes a State Legislator to take away somebody elses land!"
Henry Moon from the movie Going South

Yes, this is an issue I think most of us would agree on, regardless of political leanings.

I've never thought much of the policy of Eminent Domain anyway. I view it as a necessary evil, and one that should be used very, VERY sparingly. For truly necessary public use projects only. And it should have to be reviewed and approved six ways from Sunday before it is used.

The idea that government can just decide "Hmmm, wouldn't it be great to get more taxes out of that little piece of land? All we have to do is force those people to sell it to BigCorp, probably at a price that is not as high as it should be, and look at all the extra money we'll have to spend! So what if those people don't want to move, in the big scheme of things, they don't really matter."

Grrrr..... this one gets my blood boiling like little else does.

And there may be some conservatives who are not against this, but I doubt there are many. At least, not the religious ones. After all, what do you think will ultimately be a prime target for this? Churches, as well as any other non-profit and tax-exempt organizations. Add to it that of homeowners, the poorest and the lower-middle class are most likely to be affected, because those are the properties that will give the greatest increase in tax base. The wealthy usually are already paying much higher taxes on the land, plus they usually have a lot more influence in the government and can keep their land from being targeted.

Can you tell this is a real hot-button for me? This ruling comes close to putting people back to the era of serfs working the land!

Oh, and Judy....

I'm not saying Bush or anyone else who has done this for a stadium are right, but I would contend that there are a lot of people who would see building a stadium as a real "public use" need, and wouldn't have a problem with using eminent domain for building a stadium, because of all the craze and fervor for a team in your own hometown (or close to it.)

But I've always had a problem with the way the sports stadiums are handled anyway. It isn't just the taking of the land in that case - it's the HUGE amounts of tax dollars that also go into building them. The average citizen ends up paying a whole lot of money (through taxes) to build a huge revenue machine for these sports team owners who make millions off of it. The studies have shown that cities never get back, in terms of money from jobs created and such, anything even close to the amount of money they spend on these stadiums.

And then, once they're built, the average citizen, whose taxes paid for the thing, can barely (if at all) afford to go to a game in one. I mean, if my taxes paid for a stadium to be built, then why do I have to pay to go to a game?

One last thing, and then I'm going to shut up for a while! <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

Since this is a ruling from the Supreme Court, it's tough to fight it. But there are ways. Probably the best way of handling this right now is by getting your local and state governments to pass laws prohibiting this kind of misuse of eminent domain. And now is the time to do it, since the issue is such a hot topic. A lot of legislators have been working on this already. I know one state - I think it's Texas - has already passed such a law.

So, everyone needs to start working on the local and state officials. A good place to help you get started on this is:
http://www.castlecoalition.org

If you are a property owner, or ever hope to be one, you should be concerned about this.

(edited because Kim was having a sydlexic moment! <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15> )

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 2 times, lastly by Kim on Jul 22, 2005 ---</FONT></center>

Got this in an e-mail & thought a few folks might be interested. There a petition to stop them from seizing your land:

+ + URGENT ACTION REQUESTED + +
Forward this message to your friends


Dear Cheryl,

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken away your Fifth Amendment
Rights and paved the way for your property to be seized!

Grassfire has launched a national petition demanding the
court reverse their decision, and we are urging all members
of our online team to take immediate action with us by
clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.org/65/petition.asp?RID=9424188


+ + Judicial Tyranny at its Worst

As hard to believe as it might be, the court has overstepped
its bounds and re-written the U.S. Constitution!

Cheryl, for more than 200 years the Fifth Amendment
protected the property rights of citizens by restricting
the government's right of eminent domain. The exact
language reads, "nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation."

Since the founding of our nation, "public use" was interpreted to
mean use for something like a school, roads, power stations,
water treatment facilities, bridges--anything that was government
owned and operated for the benefit of its citizens.

Now with this ruling, "public use" means anything that could
increase tax revenue for a city. This jeopardizes anyone and
everyone, and leaves the door open for widespread abuse!

+ + Take Action and Take Back Your Rights!

Grassfire is committed to seeing that the court reverses its
decision and restores the Fifth Amendment and its original
intent, but we need to hear the voice of the American people!

Please take a moment to add your name to our national petition
by clicking below:
http://www.grassfire.org/65/petition.asp?RID=9424188

Over the next 30 days, Grassfire is calling on at least 100,000
citizens to sign our petition, and alert their friends and family
members to this egregious example of judicial tyranny!

Thank you for taking quick action with us!

Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org Alliance

P.S: This High Court ruling could have a disastrous affect on
every American citizen. Please sign our "Restore My Property
Rights" petition and then alert your friends, family and
co-workers--urging them to sign as well.

We want to rally 100,000 citizens as soon as possible!

Please forward to at least 25-30 people, today!

+ + Sign our "Restore My Property Rights" petition:
http://www.grassfire.org/65/petition.asp?RID=9424188

+ + Read the full text of the ruling:
http://www.grassfire.org/65/petition.asp?RID=9424188