Case study number 8 million on why Democrats should NEVER be in power. Our agreement ended, so we will seize your property

Probably not.

The time to have become creative was 30 years ago, actually.

I honestly don’t know if there is any realistic way to stop long term gentrification.

Nope.

Like here a few years ago. City needed 10 foot of a guys property to finish a road. He would only sell the entire 3 acre parcel.

He fought eminent domain, and lost the 10 foot of his property and was compensated for it. We have a nice new road that releived traffic on a couple of others.

Guy used the money from the 10 foot to help finance his new house on the property.

Everybody won.

But forcing a building owner to give up his property simple because the city ~THINKS~ the original agreement needs to keep going??? That’s crap and no court should allow it.

Nope it’s like taxes.

I support limited taxes for constitutional purposes.

I opposed extreme taxes for exteme unconstitutional purposes (think new green deal and warren’s wealth tax to pay for everything free free free for some people.)

Nope.

It’s like taxes. A necessary evil that should be limited.

You mean all the land in Texas along the border has buildings built on it?? Really?

According to the article, they gave the developer several million dollars in exchange for 59 rent controlled apartments for 30 years.

City gave the money, developer kept 59 rent controlled apartments for 30 years.

Exactally, read the article about the same city voting down allowing 4 plexes on single family lots.

It’s not. It’s a case of is it for a constitutionally allowed use. Under Keyo (or whatever it was called) I don’t know for sure this case would lose, but it should.

No. At the heart of this is LA crying about an agreement that expired and saying okay, you don’t want to extend it, we will take your property.

“Should” doesn’t mean much.

A building my family owned for 30 years was seized using Eminent Domain in order to build a basketball stadium and commercial plaza. Should that have happen? Probably not.

Nevertheless, it still happened. In fact, it’s how I got started working in politics.

1 Like

No it should not have happend.

Much of the properties they want to seize and have seized in the past do have buildings on them.

The point of this matter is the misuse of eminent domain is neither solely a Democratic nor solely a GOP thing.

And yet, it did. The building my family owned is no longer there, and there’s an enormous and ugly basketball stadium there instead.

I still think national security/securing our borders is a valid use of eminent domain.

National security, now thats funny. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yes. I agree with you here.

The city is overstepping it’s bounds.

This is adorable…

Building 4 plexes on single family lots has its own issues.

It sounds easy, but just adding raw capacity has its own considerations in places that are already packed and choked with people.

If only we had someone…a supreme leader who, because of his authority as that leader could swoop in and make it stop.

Horse hockey, that’s like saying all homicides should be treated as self defense because some are treated as self defense.

If the city wants the buildings they can pay fair market value for them IF the owners are interested in selling.

If the owners are not interested the city can build new “affordable housing” elsewhere.

You can’t simply move the border.

More importantly one is clearly a national security issue while the other absolutely is not.