OT BUSH USED EMINENT DOMAIN To Kick A Family Off Their Land To Build A Ballpark

(See also:
[url]http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles3/bush_and_eminent_domain.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/10/a_library_.php[/url]
[url]http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html[/url]
[url]http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=539&sid=200[/url]
)

<CITE:http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/SweetheartDeal.html>


The Governor's Sweetheart Deal
BY ROBERT BRYCE

Governor George W. Bush and the other owners of the Texas Rangers
are deadbeats. Rich deadbeats, but deadbeats nevertheless.

In early January, Bush and his baseball partners hit a home run,
selling the Texas Rangers to Thomas Hicks for $250 million. Bush
himself hit a grand slam. For his 1.8 percent share of the club --
which cost him $605,000 -- the Governor gets paid between $10 and $14
million. That is a return of up to twenty-three times his original
investment -- in less than nine years. But even though Bush and his
cohorts are making nearly three times what they paid for the club in
1989, they haven't paid $7.5 million they owe the city of Arlington.

The Rangers owners owe the money

because of a court judgment against the

Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), which
was set up by the city to condemn land for, and administer, the
Ballpark at Arlington project. In May of 1996, a Tarrant County jury
found the ASFDA had not paid a fair price for thirteen acres of land it
condemned, and awarded the sellers (the Mathes family) more than six
times what the city had agreed to pay. A year after the jury's
decision, the city decided not to appeal and paid the plaintiffs $7.5
million. That's where the Rangers' obligation arises.

In 1990 the Rangers agreed to pay any costs that exceeded $135
million on the Ballpark project. Under those terms, the city's position
is that the $7.5-million judgment should be paid by Bush and the
Rangers. Two days after Hicks purchased the Rangers, Arlington city
attorney Jay Doegey told this reporter, "We have a

contract with them that says they will pay anything over $135
million. The costs in the condemnation case are over that amount." But
Doegey has not demanded payment; it appears that Arlington city

officials don't want to irritate the owners of the Rangers.

Tom Schieffer, who was a general partner and president of the
Rangers, said, "It's not our debt. That's the position we have taken.
And that's consistent with what the master agreement says." But now
that Schieffer and Bush are cashing in their chips, wouldn't making
good on their $7.5-million debt be a nice gesture to the city? "I'm
sure we will work out something," said Schieffer.

"I think when it is all said and done, I will have made more money
than I ever dreamed I would make," Bush told the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram. And he's making millions because the Ballpark at
Arlington is a gigantic, taxpayer-supported, cash machine. Last year,
Financial World magazine named the Ballpark the most profitable venue
in baseball. Hicks didn't buy the Rangers because he wants Juan
González's autograph. He bought them because he can make a lot of
money at the stadium that George W. Bush takes credit for building.

In 1993, while walking through the stadium, Bush told the Houston
Chronicle, "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done
anything,' well, this is it." But Bush would have never gotten the

stadium deal off the ground if the city of Arlington had not agreed
to use its power of eminent domain to seize the property that belonged
to the Mathes family. And evidence presented in the Mathes lawsuit
suggests that the Rangers' owners --

remember that Bush was the managing general partner -- were
conspiring to use the city's condemnation powers to obtain the
thirteen-acre tract a full six months before the ASFDA was even
created.

In an October 26, 1990, memo from Mike Reilly (an Arlington real
estate broker and part owner of the Rangers), to Tom Schieffer, Reilly
says of the Mathes property, "... in this particular situation our
first offer should be our final offer.... If this fails, we will
probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond
election passes."

The Mathes memo reveals a sharp contrast between Bush's public
pronouncements in defense of property rights and his private
profiteering. While running against Ann Richards, Bush said, "I
understand full well the value of private property and its importance
not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do
everything I can to defend the power of private property and private
property rights when I am the governor of this state."

Yet Bush and his partners used Arlington's powers to condemn the
land for the stadium, and relied on taxpayers to repay the bonds sold
to build the Ballpark -- receiving what amounts to a direct
$135-million subsidy. Now, after tripling the amount they paid for the
Rangers, Bush and his partners won't re-pay the city a measly $7.5
million.

"The best way to allocate resources in our society is through the
marketplace. Not through a governing elite," Bush said on the first day
of his 1993 campaign. By selling the Rangers, Bush and his fellow
sports moguls demonstrated the power of the marketplace -- not exactly
a "free-market" marketplace, but who worries about small details? Now,
by refusing to pay their debt to the people who pay the taxes in
Arlington, they are also proving that the governing elite live by their
own rules.

Robert Bryce is a Contributing Editor for the Austin Chronicle,
where a version of this story first appeared. He broke the story of the
Governor's Ballpark at Arlington in the Observer of May 9, 1997.

All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned by
private groups.

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned by
> private groups.
>[/color]

And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
you support the ruling?

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...[color=blue]
>
> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...[color=green]
>> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned by
>> private groups.
>>[/color]
>
> And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> you support the ruling?
>[/color]
The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality. They
decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State Legislature
would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then it
would not happen.

There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed by
local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the people)
that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local government does
not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision by the
US Supreme Court does not override that.

Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more common in
Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very little
control of their own property in most countries of the world.

In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...[color=green]
> >
> > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...[color=darkred]
> >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned by
> >> private groups.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > you support the ruling?
> >[/color]
> The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality. They
> decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State Legislature
> would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then it
> would not happen.
>
> There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed by
> local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the people)
> that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local government does
> not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision by the
> US Supreme Court does not override that.
>
> Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more common in
> Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very little
> control of their own property in most countries of the world.[/color]

It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
larger private developer.

Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
influence.
--

Dbu_^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned by
> > >> private groups.
> > >>
> > >
> > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > you support the ruling?
> > >[/color]
> > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality. They
> > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State Legislature
> > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then it
> > would not happen.
> >
> > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed by
> > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the people)
> > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local government does
> > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision by the
> > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> >
> > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more common in
> > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very little
> > control of their own property in most countries of the world.[/color]
>
> It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> larger private developer.
>
> Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> influence.
>[/color]

what is your point dude

you don't have one. You got BUSTED for supporting a crook for
president, once again.

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-7D23AE.19265124062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned[/color][/color][/color]
by[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >> private groups.
> > >>
> > >
> > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > you support the ruling?
> > >[/color]
> > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality. They
> > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State Legislature
> > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then it
> > would not happen.
> >
> > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed by
> > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the[/color][/color]
people)[color=blue][color=green]
> > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local government[/color][/color]
does[color=blue][color=green]
> > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision by[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> >
> > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more common in
> > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very little
> > control of their own property in most countries of the world.[/color]
>
> It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> larger private developer.
>
> Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> influence.[/color]

You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support using
private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large private
developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this. I'm not
arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.

"Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote in message
news:INudnY7-cIN7XyHfUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
>
> You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support using
> private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large private
> developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this. I'm not
> arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.
>[/color]
Just because a development is privately owned, does not mean it is not in
the public interest. There are lots of ballparks that are privately owned,
but were built on land that was obtained by cities via eminent domain.

There might be other developments that governments see as in the public
interest, but do not want to pay for or manage themselves, so they turn it
over to private business. The key is that the local governments, elected by
the people, make the decision as to when to allow eminent domain to be used.

Had Arlington Texas not obtained the land for the Ball Park at Arlington,
then the Rangers would have moved to Dallas. The only reason it was in
Arlington to begin with, is that the original owner of the Rangers lived in
FT Worth.

Previously, the Rangers were playing in minor league quality stadium in
Arlington that was the laughing stock of major league baseball. By building
the new stadium in Arlington, the residents of the city benefited greatly by
the sales tax generated by the stadium, not to mention the associated
economic development nearby with restaurants, hotels, etc that are mostly
used by people who come from outside Arlington (Dallas and surrounding
cities).

In article <INudnY7-cIN7XyHfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-7D23AE.19265124062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...
> > > >
> > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are owned[/color][/color]
> by[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > >> private groups.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > > you support the ruling?
> > > >
> > > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality. They
> > > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State Legislature
> > > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then it
> > > would not happen.
> > >
> > > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed by
> > > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the[/color][/color]
> people)[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local government[/color][/color]
> does[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision by[/color][/color]
> the[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> > >
> > > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more common in
> > > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very little
> > > control of their own property in most countries of the world.[/color]
> >
> > It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> > taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> > larger private developer.
> >
> > Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> > influence.[/color]
>
> You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support using
> private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large private
> developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this. I'm not
> arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.[/color]


Perhaps there's no connection, but it looks suspicious. I should have
used the word progressive rather than democrat, poor choice of words,
anyway here are the states and the link. Arrow down to the bottom of
the article.

In fairness to the court, I think all they were ruling on is the
legality of a state law and not making new law. As you can see,
Connecticut already had state law allowing the use of ED for private
development the high court only said that their law is legal. As
someone else said if we don't like it we need to get our state
government to change the states law, which will never happen as this is
too good a tool for tax hungry local politicians. We must watch out now
for other states to make new laws that use these methods.

Six States allow condemnation for economic development purposes:

Connecticut
Kansas
Maryland
Minnesota
New York
North Dakota

[url]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zdW_PkpCz4oJ:www.icsc.org/government[/url]
/ICSC_White_Paper.pdf+What+states+allow+taking+of+private+property+for+co
mmercial+use&hl=en&lr=lang_en%20target=nw
--

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-96DBB6.03300025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <INudnY7-cIN7XyHfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> "Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > news:ntspam-7D23AE.19265124062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=darkred]
> > > In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > > > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are[/color][/color][/color]
owned[color=blue][color=green]
> > by[color=darkred]
> > > > >> private groups.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > > > you support the ruling?
> > > > >
> > > > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality.[/color][/color][/color]
They[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State[/color][/color][/color]
Legislature[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then[/color][/color][/color]
it[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > would not happen.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed[/color][/color][/color]
by[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the[/color]
> > people)[color=darkred]
> > > > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local[/color][/color][/color]
government[color=blue][color=green]
> > does[color=darkred]
> > > > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision[/color][/color][/color]
by[color=blue][color=green]
> > the[color=darkred]
> > > > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> > > >
> > > > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more[/color][/color][/color]
common in[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very[/color][/color][/color]
little[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > control of their own property in most countries of the world.
> > >
> > > It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> > > taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> > > larger private developer.
> > >
> > > Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> > > influence.[/color]
> >
> > You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support[/color][/color]
using[color=blue][color=green]
> > private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large private
> > developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this. I'm[/color][/color]
not[color=blue][color=green]
> > arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.[/color]
>
>
> Perhaps there's no connection, but it looks suspicious. I should have
> used the word progressive rather than democrat, poor choice of words,[/color]

I don't know if I would even say Progessive.
[color=blue]
> anyway here are the states and the link. Arrow down to the bottom of
> the article.
>
> In fairness to the court, I think all they were ruling on is the
> legality of a state law and not making new law. As you can see,
> Connecticut already had state law allowing the use of ED for private
> development the high court only said that their law is legal. As
> someone else said if we don't like it we need to get our state
> government to change the states law, which will never happen as this is
> too good a tool for tax hungry local politicians. We must watch out now
> for other states to make new laws that use these methods.[/color]

My first thought on this ruling was one of negative. The more I think of it
the more I understand why they did what they did. They also made it a point
to allow states to hold their own strict laws.
[color=blue]
> Six States allow condemnation for economic development purposes:
>
> Connecticut
> Kansas
> Maryland
> Minnesota
> New York
> North Dakota[/color]

Sounds fine to me. I guess if they do something that's obviously wrong the
people will have to stand up and make sure it doesn't happen. Somebody in
here mentioned that these companies that want to do this should make offers
to buy the house and if its refused then too bad, I kind of agree with this
in the case of large companies making profit.
[color=blue]
> [url]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zdW_PkpCz4oJ:www.icsc.org/government[/url]
> /ICSC_White_Paper.pdf+What+states+allow+taking+of+private+property+for+co
> mmercial+use&hl=en&lr=lang_en%20target=nw[/color]

Use Tinyurl.com for long addressed sites.

In article <qFCdnR_gd_pkiiDfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-96DBB6.03300025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <INudnY7-cIN7XyHfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > "Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > > news:ntspam-7D23AE.19265124062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > > > > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are[/color][/color]
> owned[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > by
> > > > > >> private groups.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > > > > you support the ruling?
> > > > > >
> > > > > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of morality.[/color][/color]
> They[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State[/color][/color]
> Legislature[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development, then[/color][/color]
> it[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > would not happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws passed[/color][/color]
> by[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by the
> > > people)
> > > > > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local[/color][/color]
> government[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > does
> > > > > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this decision[/color][/color]
> by[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > the
> > > > > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more[/color][/color]
> common in[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very[/color][/color]
> little[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > control of their own property in most countries of the world.
> > > >
> > > > It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> > > > taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> > > > larger private developer.
> > > >
> > > > Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> > > > influence.
> > >
> > > You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support[/color][/color]
> using[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large private
> > > developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this. I'm[/color][/color]
> not[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.[/color]
> >
> >
> > Perhaps there's no connection, but it looks suspicious. I should have
> > used the word progressive rather than democrat, poor choice of words,[/color]
>
> I don't know if I would even say Progessive.
>[color=green]
> > anyway here are the states and the link. Arrow down to the bottom of
> > the article.
> >
> > In fairness to the court, I think all they were ruling on is the
> > legality of a state law and not making new law. As you can see,
> > Connecticut already had state law allowing the use of ED for private
> > development the high court only said that their law is legal. As
> > someone else said if we don't like it we need to get our state
> > government to change the states law, which will never happen as this is
> > too good a tool for tax hungry local politicians. We must watch out now
> > for other states to make new laws that use these methods.[/color]
>
> My first thought on this ruling was one of negative. The more I think of it
> the more I understand why they did what they did. They also made it a point
> to allow states to hold their own strict laws.
>[color=green]
> > Six States allow condemnation for economic development purposes:
> >
> > Connecticut
> > Kansas
> > Maryland
> > Minnesota
> > New York
> > North Dakota[/color]
>
> Sounds fine to me. I guess if they do something that's obviously wrong the
> people will have to stand up and make sure it doesn't happen. Somebody in
> here mentioned that these companies that want to do this should make offers
> to buy the house and if its refused then too bad, I kind of agree with this
> in the case of large companies making profit.
>[color=green]
> > [url]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zdW_PkpCz4oJ:www.icsc.org/government[/url]
> > /ICSC_White_Paper.pdf+What+states+allow+taking+of+private+property+for+co
> > mmercial+use&hl=en&lr=lang_en%20target=nw[/color]
>
> Use Tinyurl.com for long addressed sites.[/color]

Big companies need to use every method available before going to local
government for ED application. One method which I would think would
help a lot is to make offers to homeowners they can't refuse, in other
words money offers well over and above the market value of the property.
Give the property owners an incentive to want to sell.
--

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-14F4AA.04174025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <qFCdnR_gd_pkiiDfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> "Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > news:ntspam-96DBB6.03300025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=darkred]
> > > In article <INudnY7-cIN7XyHfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > > "Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > > > news:ntspam-7D23AE.19265124062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > > In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> > > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > > > > > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are[/color]
> > owned[color=darkred]
> > > > by
> > > > > > >> private groups.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > > > > > you support the ruling?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of[/color][/color][/color]
morality.[color=blue][color=green]
> > They[color=darkred]
> > > > > > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State[/color]
> > Legislature[color=darkred]
> > > > > > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development,[/color][/color][/color]
then[color=blue][color=green]
> > it[color=darkred]
> > > > > > would not happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws[/color][/color][/color]
passed[color=blue][color=green]
> > by[color=darkred]
> > > > > > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > people)
> > > > > > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local[/color]
> > government[color=darkred]
> > > > does
> > > > > > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this[/color][/color][/color]
decision[color=blue][color=green]
> > by[color=darkred]
> > > > the
> > > > > > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more[/color]
> > common in[color=darkred]
> > > > > > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very[/color]
> > little[color=darkred]
> > > > > > control of their own property in most countries of the world.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> > > > > taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> > > > > larger private developer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> > > > > influence.
> > > >
> > > > You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support[/color]
> > using[color=darkred]
> > > > private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large[/color][/color][/color]
private[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this.[/color][/color][/color]
I'm[color=blue][color=green]
> > not[color=darkred]
> > > > arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps there's no connection, but it looks suspicious. I should have
> > > used the word progressive rather than democrat, poor choice of words,[/color]
> >
> > I don't know if I would even say Progessive.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > anyway here are the states and the link. Arrow down to the bottom of
> > > the article.
> > >
> > > In fairness to the court, I think all they were ruling on is the
> > > legality of a state law and not making new law. As you can see,
> > > Connecticut already had state law allowing the use of ED for private
> > > development the high court only said that their law is legal. As
> > > someone else said if we don't like it we need to get our state
> > > government to change the states law, which will never happen as this[/color][/color][/color]
is[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > too good a tool for tax hungry local politicians. We must watch out[/color][/color][/color]
now[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > for other states to make new laws that use these methods.[/color]
> >
> > My first thought on this ruling was one of negative. The more I think of[/color][/color]
it[color=blue][color=green]
> > the more I understand why they did what they did. They also made it a[/color][/color]
point[color=blue][color=green]
> > to allow states to hold their own strict laws.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Six States allow condemnation for economic development purposes:
> > >
> > > Connecticut
> > > Kansas
> > > Maryland
> > > Minnesota
> > > New York
> > > North Dakota[/color]
> >
> > Sounds fine to me. I guess if they do something that's obviously wrong[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > people will have to stand up and make sure it doesn't happen. Somebody[/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green]
> > here mentioned that these companies that want to do this should make[/color][/color]
offers[color=blue][color=green]
> > to buy the house and if its refused then too bad, I kind of agree with[/color][/color]
this[color=blue][color=green]
> > in the case of large companies making profit.
> >[color=darkred]
> > >[/color][/color][/color]
[url]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zdW_PkpCz4oJ:www.icsc.org/government[/url][color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >[/color][/color][/color]
/ICSC_White_Paper.pdf+What+states+allow+taking+of+private+property+for+co[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > mmercial+use&hl=en&lr=lang_en%20target=nw[/color]
> >
> > Use Tinyurl.com for long addressed sites.[/color]
>
> Big companies need to use every method available before going to local
> government for ED application. One method which I would think would
> help a lot is to make offers to homeowners they can't refuse, in other
> words money offers well over and above the market value of the property.
> Give the property owners an incentive to want to sell.[/color]

I agree, which is what I meant when I said they should make offers, and if
refused then that's too bad for the company. I have to wonder what's going
to happen in areas that are growing in rapid rates such as Vegas and areas
in AZ that are booming big time. Will the state demolish homes in order to
expand city coverage? Or would that be against the law, does it have to be
to start growth or continue growth.

In article <Ak2dnRnyYfuvuCDfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-14F4AA.04174025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <qFCdnR_gd_pkiiDfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > "Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > > news:ntspam-96DBB6.03300025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > In article <INudnY7-cIN7XyHfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> > > > "Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ntspam-7D23AE.19265124062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > > > In article <If6dnd0Gh6wtCCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> > > > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1119654736.5b9c360b9b220db632ec38ad89026d01@teranews...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:d9ednYzOhsf2EiHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> > > > > > > >> All cities use eminent domain to build sports arenas that are
> > > owned
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> private groups.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And now the supreme court says it's legal. So I take it
> > > > > > > > you support the ruling?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Supreme Court does not decide issues on the basis of[/color][/color]
> morality.[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > They
> > > > > > > decide on the basis of law. If the US Congress or the State
> > > Legislature
> > > > > > > would pass laws against eminent domain for private development,[/color][/color]
> then[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > it
> > > > > > > would not happen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is nothing in the US Constitution to override the laws[/color][/color]
> passed[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > by
> > > > > > > local, state, or federal government law makers (all elected by[/color][/color]
> the[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > people)
> > > > > > > that may allows eminent domain in some locations. If a local
> > > government
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > not allow eminent domain for private development, then this[/color][/color]
> decision[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > US Supreme Court does not override that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just in case you did not know, this sort of thing is much more
> > > common in
> > > > > > > Europe and other parts of the world. Private citizens have very
> > > little
> > > > > > > control of their own property in most countries of the world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an unknown fact, but that several states have laws that allow
> > > > > > taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to a
> > > > > > larger private developer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of these states have had a historically heavy democrat party
> > > > > > influence.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've now made a accusation that democrat controlled states support
> > > using
> > > > > private property for the purpose of turning it over to a large[/color][/color]
> private[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > developer. Back it up please, I want to see some evidence of this.[/color][/color]
> I'm[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > not
> > > > > arguing it, just want to see the evidence to this accusation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps there's no connection, but it looks suspicious. I should have
> > > > used the word progressive rather than democrat, poor choice of words,
> > >
> > > I don't know if I would even say Progessive.
> > >
> > > > anyway here are the states and the link. Arrow down to the bottom of
> > > > the article.
> > > >
> > > > In fairness to the court, I think all they were ruling on is the
> > > > legality of a state law and not making new law. As you can see,
> > > > Connecticut already had state law allowing the use of ED for private
> > > > development the high court only said that their law is legal. As
> > > > someone else said if we don't like it we need to get our state
> > > > government to change the states law, which will never happen as this[/color][/color]
> is[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > too good a tool for tax hungry local politicians. We must watch out[/color][/color]
> now[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > for other states to make new laws that use these methods.
> > >
> > > My first thought on this ruling was one of negative. The more I think of[/color][/color]
> it[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > the more I understand why they did what they did. They also made it a[/color][/color]
> point[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > to allow states to hold their own strict laws.
> > >
> > > > Six States allow condemnation for economic development purposes:
> > > >
> > > > Connecticut
> > > > Kansas
> > > > Maryland
> > > > Minnesota
> > > > New York
> > > > North Dakota
> > >
> > > Sounds fine to me. I guess if they do something that's obviously wrong[/color][/color]
> the[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > people will have to stand up and make sure it doesn't happen. Somebody[/color][/color]
> in[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > here mentioned that these companies that want to do this should make[/color][/color]
> offers[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > to buy the house and if its refused then too bad, I kind of agree with[/color][/color]
> this[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > in the case of large companies making profit.
> > >
> > > >[/color][/color]
> [url]http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zdW_PkpCz4oJ:www.icsc.org/government[/url][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > >[/color][/color]
> /ICSC_White_Paper.pdf+What+states+allow+taking+of+private+property+for+co[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > mmercial+use&hl=en&lr=lang_en%20target=nw
> > >
> > > Use Tinyurl.com for long addressed sites.[/color]
> >
> > Big companies need to use every method available before going to local
> > government for ED application. One method which I would think would
> > help a lot is to make offers to homeowners they can't refuse, in other
> > words money offers well over and above the market value of the property.
> > Give the property owners an incentive to want to sell.[/color]
>
> I agree, which is what I meant when I said they should make offers, and if
> refused then that's too bad for the company. I have to wonder what's going
> to happen in areas that are growing in rapid rates such as Vegas and areas
> in AZ that are booming big time. Will the state demolish homes in order to
> expand city coverage? Or would that be against the law, does it have to be
> to start growth or continue growth.[/color]

Nevada is pretty much like the old west that's why I like it. I don't
know what the law is there regarding this, but is seems to me they have
a lot of room to spread out.

I can see a benefit to this aspect of ED. For truly blighted areas it
could be a savior for the cities with rundown crime ridden sections, but
I can also see how it can be grossly misused.
--

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-14F4AA.04174025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> Big companies need to use every method available before going to local
> government for ED application. One method which I would think would
> help a lot is to make offers to homeowners they can't refuse, in other
> words money offers well over and above the market value of the property.
> Give the property owners an incentive to want to sell.
> --[/color]

I think there is some confusion here. Usually the government initiates the
process and decides to develop some property for the public good, such as a
sports stadium, convention center, shopping center, etc. These things bring
tax revenue to the city. Then they solicit bids from private firms who they
want to develop the property (so the government does not have to put up the
capital or operating expertise themselves).

In article <pbOdnba2DcfNqiDfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-14F4AA.04174025062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > Big companies need to use every method available before going to local
> > government for ED application. One method which I would think would
> > help a lot is to make offers to homeowners they can't refuse, in other
> > words money offers well over and above the market value of the property.
> > Give the property owners an incentive to want to sell.
> > --[/color]
>
> I think there is some confusion here. Usually the government initiates the
> process and decides to develop some property for the public good, such as a
> sports stadium, convention center, shopping center, etc. These things bring
> tax revenue to the city. Then they solicit bids from private firms who they
> want to develop the property (so the government does not have to put up the
> capital or operating expertise themselves).[/color]

Yes I understand that.

What I was pointing out is when a Target store or Walmart (for example)
want to build in a community they should try all possible means
including offering over and above prices for private property before
going to the local government for ED action. Not all cases is the local
government soliciting bids for development. Many cases where a company
goes before the local city government with proposals and a desire to
build in a certain area and the local government drools at the prospect
of getting a tax plum in their laps. The company also mentions that if
you cannot "help" us we'll go to the next suburb over and build
there....Of course the city fathers will go to any means possible to
keep them.
--