| Author | Message | ||
     M1combat |
This land is your land -- No. Your land is their land Debra Saunders (archive) July 28, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend A letter on the front of what used to be Revelli Tires in Oakland warns: "Eminent domain unfair. To learn all about the abuses of eminent domain, please go to www.castlecoaliton.org. Educate yourself. Pay attention. You could be next." John Revelli wrote the note after the city of Oakland evicted him on July 1 from his own property -- and a business run by his family since 1949 -- so that a private developer could build apartments on his land. It especially galls him, Revelli told me over the phone Tuesday, that while he has been forced away from his livelihood for weeks, Oakland hasn't done anything with his property. Go look at the building, he said, and the sign will still be there because the city hasn't touched anything. Sure enough, the sign was up on Tuesday night. Oakland also evicted Tony Fung, Revelli's next-door neighbor and the owner-operator of Autohouse on 20th Street. "I am a first-generation immigrant," Fung told me. "This is my American dream." To hell with Fung's dream -- the city of Oakland seized it, so that someone else can build on it. And without offering enough money for Fung to relocate his business, he says. The city has legions of lawyers to press its case, while Fung says he has to scrape together pennies to hire an attorney. "There's no way a small guy like me is able to fight that," Fung noted. He has lost his business, his property and the belief that private property is truly private in the United States. That last item -- belief in the system -- was destroyed in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that governments can seize private property to give it to private developers. Somehow, that sweetheart deal constitutes "public use" -- maybe because city government grows richer through increased tax revenue. That may explain why the Oakland City Council voted six-to-one to authorize this eminent-domain seizure. One vote and -- voila -- you see two small businessmen up against City Hall, the Big Bench and big developers. Talk about being outgunned. Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, which fights government eminent-domain overreach, argued that the California Supreme Court and state law don't bolster eminent-domain abuses. But: "The laws are routinely ignored because local governments know most people can't afford to fight them." "A constitutional amendment is the best way of protecting California citizens from tax-hungry local government and land-hungry developers," Berliner added. Please note: State Sen. Tom McClintock has drafted an amendment for just that purpose. Meanwhile, Revelli and Fung have lost their livelihoods. I plead guilty to gushing back in 1999 about Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to add 6,000 units of housing to the downtown area -- and with private money. I never dreamed, however, that Oakland would evict successful, blight-free businesses so that private developers could make more money. I called the offices of Council Members Jane Brunner and Ignacio De La Fuente, Mayor Jerry Brown, and some city officials connected with what is called the Uptown Project. I heard many reasons why various biggies couldn't talk to me. Brown -- to his credit -- did talk. "I know Revelli," said Brown. "He fixed my brakes, twice." Brown lives seven blocks away from Revelli's shop. He admitted that Autohouse and Revelli Tires are not blighted, but told of other buildings nearby that were crime-ridden and vermin-infested before the city pushed for redevelopment. "You cannot have a downtown with this kind of abandonment," said Brown. And: "There is a greater good here," in eradicating the blight and replacing it with homes. The mayor also made a pledge: "It's not easy, but I personally pledge to do everything I can to get this guy located." Fung, too. If that doesn't happen, it is not as if Oakland couldn't redevelop the land around Autohouse and Revelli Tires, which occupy about 6,500 square feet amid asphalt parking lots. "I was very, very happy there," Revelli told me. "I had the best building, the best location -- one block from the BART station. I couldn't have asked for better." Well, there was one problem with Revelli's property: It was on such a prime location, the government virtually stole it. You could be next. Woody Guthrie wrote: "This land is your land, this land is my land, from California to the New York Island. From the redwood forest, to the gulf-stream waters, this land was made for you and me." As far as the U.S. Supreme Court and Oakland are concerned, alas, those lyrics are all wet. To the true believers in eminent domain, your land is their land, and all land was made to produce optimal tax revenue. | ||
| Rek |
An excellent reason to live in eastern Montana. The countryside and weather is so hideous no one can stand to live here and so no development occurs. Rob | ||
| Bigblock |
This is so indicitave of the present state of affairs in "our" country right now, it's downright scary. Whatever happened to "OUR" country? Maybe it IS time for the rioting to begin? Do the good people of our country care enough about our rapidly dissappearing rights to actually do something about it? Waiting until this happens to YOU is waiting TOO LONG. I don't pretend to have the answers. I vote, and frankly, I am not seeing too many decent options in THAT department. What solutions do we have? I guess we can attempt to pressure our elected officials to actually pass such legislation as the esteemed Sen McClintock has drafted, and hope that it doesn't get endlessly tied up in court while the crooks continue to steal from us. They could atleast properly compensate and relocate these victims, because that's what these people are, victims of "our" gov't in it's never ending quest for higher tax revenues without giving any real return. Just my honest opinion here. How do you feel about it? | ||
| M1combat |
Can we take a vote on whether or not our brothers and sisters in the armed forces would actually fire on us? | ||
| Chasespeed |
M1...I can say this, as far as me, I would refrain from firing on fellow americans..unless the it came down to me or you, well guess what, it aint gona be me... I have an idea though.... How about, they take the money outta politcs...that should get us some decent people THAT ACTAULLY CARE..... other than that, I will not discuss politcs...just not in my nature... Chase | ||
| Signguyxb12 |
" From my cold dead hands" CH that's what i gots to say abouts that | ||
| M1combat |
They can have my guns... Bullets first  . | ||
| Ceejay |
As we continue to give up our rights in the name of the common good we also continue to absolve ourselves of responsibility, therefor progressive thought, and soon society as a whole becomes a soceity living, working, dreaming for the good of a few instead of good for the common people. | ||
| M2me |
I would really like to comment on this...but I can't. Why can't I? Because I have agreed not to discuss political or partisan topics here. I'd really like to honor that agreement. I don't want to sound like a baby about this but it isn't fair to allow some people to post their political views while punishing others for doing the same thing. There should be one rule for everybody! Am I way off base?  PS: This is not a comment about this specific topic. For that my only response can be, "No comment".  | ||
| Roc |
Pellets first?  | ||
| Jon |
The City Fathers need to be retrained by an angry population. This is wrong and against everything America Stands for. | ||
| Coolice |
Live in a r/v with a enclosed trailer for a garage and move around, NO taxes and the greedy politicians will have no tax money coming in. I'm not going further on this any more but OUR government is NOT for US any more.......God Bless America | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Take a deep breath everyone. Latest update on the Fox network is that there has been such an outcry across the nation that both Democrats and Republicans are highly in favor of a bill started to prevent this from happening. I think it was sponsered by a Tennessee congressman because of a local problem and many think it will pass both house and senate easily and the President has to sign it. Lets hope so and keep this the land and home of the free. Bob (Message edited by bob_thompson on July 29, 2005) | ||
| Jon |
Well they need to hurry up and do it. The Justices that votes for it should be removed from the bench. Fat chance, but it merits being said. | ||
| Imonabuss |
This is indeed madness. How something like this could get through the courts is a staggering clear message of how far we have fallen by giving away individual rights for the "good of everyone". Fight against this stuff to your last breath. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Did they not pay the guy for his land? As long as the owner is paid market value PLUS hassle fees. Then OK. I live in a "bad" area of about 30 houses. The area would make for some nice town homes etc etc. If I was given market value plus 5-10% then OK. If not -- I put on my vest, dial in for 200yds, and start putting 5.56mm holes in the first government car that comes up the street  . But my only concern is that I would NOT be able to find a nice house for the same price. So unless I was given at least 50% over value I'd have to stay put. -------------------------------------- The developers (rich) should not be able to take advantage of the poor--- by means of the legal system. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Can we take a vote on whether or not our brothers and sisters in the armed forces would actually fire on us? it would be the local/state/federal cops--- ie Waco, Ruby Ridge etc etc} | ||
| M1combat |
That's the problem... They ARE able to do it. Take a look around the net for eminent domain and wal-mart... They use it quite regularly. Personally... I think the price of using eminent domain should be 200% of fair market value, not 105-110%. That's just me though. Maybe it would be even better to pay 105-110% fair market value and "stock" in the land forever. A cut of the profits. | ||
| Chainsaw |
In case you would like to read the actual decision, not just sound bites provided by the media, Kelo Vs. New London PDF Dissenting opinions start on page 28. The decision looks to be legally correct using precedents, but morally flawed. I sure don't trust some nitwit local council person to have my best interest in mind. Run for local office boys, or pay attention to those that do. In the meantime, I have heard rumor that someone is trying to use Eminent Domain to force the Concurring Justices out of their own personal homes. That would be poetic. | ||
| Dfbutler |
That's why the founders included the 2nd amendment. | ||
| M1combat |
"I have heard rumor that someone is trying to use Eminent Domain to force the Concurring Justices out of their own personal homes. That would be poetic." I've heard that rumor as well... Apparently for a string of hotels called the "Lost Liberty Hotels". I was tempted to write a letter to the principalities involved letting them know that I would guarantee over the next ten years that I would indeed patronize each and every one of them to make sure it would work... Then I decided I would rather it not work... Do unto others and all that . | ||
| Bomber |
Sadly, laws do NOT equal morality -- like the man sez, pay attention to the folks you vote for, and hope that common sense becomes moreso | ||
| Impulse_101 |
That's not a rumor. A guy is going after Justice David Souter's property. http://www.freestarmedia.com/ JT (Message edited by Impulse_101 on August 01, 2005) | ||
| Brucelee |
This should be resolved when the new court convenes with Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Thomas residing. Hold tight, we will take back America from the fascists soon! | ||
| Jerseyguy |
"I have heard rumor that someone is trying to use Eminent Domain to force the Concurring Justices out of their own personal homes. That would be poetic." I believe that is happening in New Hampshire to a farmhouse owned by one of the supreme court justices Just found it - go here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161051,00.html (Message edited by jerseyguy on August 01, 2005) | ||
| Jlnance |
This should be resolved when the new court convenes with Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Thomas residing. As much as I hate this decision, I hope the court does not reverse itself. It does a lot of damage to the credability of the country if the court flip flops decisions based on who's currently on the bench. I would much prefer to see this fixed by an amendment. I don't know if anyone is even pushing that though. | ||
| Brucelee |
I don't see the amendment happening and to me, no need for one. The Constitution is clear on the use of ED and the justices simply booted the decision in the minds of many Const scholars. Therefore it is appropriate to fix the error in my opinion. I don't understand the credibility comment. Exactly who is the audience that you believe we are losing credibility with? To me, this is a USA issue and one of the more glaring mistakes made by this particular court. To fix it quickly is to understand that even the Supremes make errors sometimes! IMHO! "As much as I hate this decision, I hope the court does not reverse itself. It does a lot of damage to the credability of the country if the court flip flops decisions based on who's currently on the bench. I would much prefer to see this fixed by an amendment. I don't know if anyone is even pushing that though." | ||
| Brucelee |
PS It would be GREAT if Souter's property was taken by ED. | ||
| Chainsaw |
Ditto! | ||
| Bigblock |
That would be "Poetic Justice" indeed! |
