Go, Hercules!

[Jeff Matthews]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1993019&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

I love a good irony. When the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was okay to use condemnation to help mall-builders and hi-rise developers, many Americans were outraged. The Court's rationale seems to be "whatever raises the tax base and helps the community." It appears, at first blush, that this holding grossly favors big business taking the little guy's property by force.

Now, it turns out Wal-Mart is not wanted in the town of Hercules, California. Having bought 17 acres and made plans to build, Wal-Mart is going to be the subject of condemnation by the city. That's right. The city has decided that it would be better for the community to not have Wal-Mart and to use that land for some more sightly, expensive, upscale stores. "Why upscale stores?" you might ask. Because the Supremes alluded to a proper use of condemnation resulting in an increased tax base.

Anyway, it is a beautiful irony, though it is still as unfair to Wal-Mart, as it would be to the little guy. Maybe the Supremes will get to review this case so they can admit they made a mistake.

[Guest " "]

there is a fair market value issue that the city has to deal with...they have to be able to pay walmart for the land.

[Tom Adams]

I agree with you Jeff. The mis-use of eminent domain is getting obscenely ridiculous in this country. Once again, more intrusion by our Imperial Federal Government in our lives. [:@] I would love for our Founding Fathers to come back to life so they could b*tch slap many of our elected officials. Alas, more people are concerned with who wins American Idol than the erosion of our basic freedoms or the economic strain our taxation system places on our economy. LONG LIVE THE FAIRTAX!!!!!!!!!!

Anyhow.....displacing homeowners via eminent domain just so some private golf club community or whatever can be built is morally wrong and how in the hell the Supreme Court ruled what they did is beyond comprehension.

Tom

[jacksonbart]

Not a legal mind but its in the family, it can't stand the idea of eminent domain. What the heck is that? IMO owning a gun should be a privilege but if you own land the government should not be able to take if away from you. Love the fact that Chester County tried to introduce a weath tax but was shot down. Government at all levels is out of control tax wise and has the wrong focus in many cases.

[Kriton]

Hey Jeff!

I know the folks that are doing the condemnations for the new Texas

Stadium in Arlington up here, now you want to talk about crap...that

has got to be the biggest farcical use of imminent domain I have ever

seen. Lets tear down a decent neighborhood, so Jerry Jones can

afford another thousand face lifts...

Oh and by the way, JB, using a -car- is a privilege - until I begin

trusting my government to protect my rights instead of finding new and

inventive ways of taking them from me..carrying a gun is my RIGHT.

Check this link out and you might get where I think we are heading...

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/9229472/detail.html

K

[stan krajewski]

Be careful what you wish for comrade.

We the consumers can make or break Walmart. Duh! Don't shop there.

Sorry, but big business just wants your money while big goverment wants your very soul.

Read 1984. It's a riot, a real barrel of laughs.

[Jeff Matthews]

Exactly! Big government wants your soul. That's why when it issued the pro-"big man" opinion allowing condemnation for private development, it's funny that the city is trying to turn its holding upside down.

The idea is this twist of fate might make the Supremes revisit the stupidity of their prior ruling - and give us back our rights....

[Jay481985]

the supreme court are a bunch of very well educated people that weighed personal rights over the good of the people. I read in class a brief outline of why. There main reason is they saw one or two people hold out just to force the company to give them ridiculous amounts of money to move or force the city or company millions in waiting around. I mean it would annoy the hell out of me if eminent domain was pulled on me but I understand if say they politely asked and then offered a generous offer on the house. Sentimental memories aside, without eminent domain, most things in cities could not be built. Think major highways through the middle of the city. Though private companies using eminent domain is besides me though! I say yes to municipalities but no to private companies.

[stan krajewski]

Building Highways, public parks, etc. is NOT what is at issue here.

Last year the Supreme court ruled 5-4 against people who were trying to save their personal property from a sick variation of eminent domain. Some city in Connecticut in all their sicker than sick wisdom decided that something more profitable be built where these peoples homes are/were.

In other words, if a municpality decides that a 15 or 20 story condo can bring in more tax dollars than a few of our miserable homes than that's now another flavor of "eminent domain".

The initial outrage by almost everyone was loud and clear. But like most issues it fades into the background and guess what - the legal precident for the future is just sitting there.

Just think for a minute the inherent corruption that can take place when polititions in a city get to decide what land to grab for their buddies. How corrupt can that get?

Once again, I'm no Walmart fan. But I can and do avoid them. There is NO avoiding the guys that tax the crap out of you. They have a gun to your head!

[jacksonbart]

Oh and by the way, JB, using a -car- is a privilege - until I begin trusting my government to protect my rights instead of finding new and inventive ways of taking them from me..carrying a gun is my RIGHT.

No argument there based on the constitution owning a firearm is your right, if you have a permit you can carry a side arm. IMO it should be a privilege, just like a car requiring a license, manditory training and insurance to operate. Its a difference of opinion plain and simple.

Using a gun as a means in any dispute with local, State or Federal governments will not be an effective method to make any point you may wish to express. Best case scenario you spend the rest of your life in a 8 by 8 concrete box, enjoying 3 hots and cot courtsey of Uncle Sam and weekly butt sex courtsey of Turk your cell mate. Worst case and more likely scenario you die in a blaze of gunfire and are portrayed as a loner crack pot on the nightly news. (actually I think I would rather take the second senario)Now disputes with the government are settled through the legal system and the voting booths. There is not going to be another revolution.

[Jay481985]

Since the right the bear arms is a second amendment in the bill of rights I cannot contest that. But on the other hands the whole reason for bearing arms is rather outdates, it was designed to keep King George V out of America and having the general population bearing arms was enough incentive for King George V to not keep coming back. But today's America, when we have a dispute, accident, etc who do we call. The Police and in most areas the Police have a reasonable responce time. I mean guns are a danger no matter who claims otherwise. More accidental shootings and deaths occur in familys that own guns than all the people who get shot dead from any would be burgler with a gun. I mean just as JB with the car, the government demands you to take drivers ed etc etc and get a license. Why, this is because cars can kill yourself and others if not trained to handle it. Most states give a gun permit without any education of it. I am being a bit hippocritical but I would like to one day own a gun but when or if I ever do I would like to be a responsible individual with gun locks, ammo chest, and take a few gun classes. But I won't use the line "self defense" as a reason for owning one. Also it most likely will be a rifle and not be a handgun.

On another note with the whole municipality using emminent domain for profit. That is wrong in its own self.

Wal-mart I hate to shop there but sometimes I do...... I dislike how people are also forced to shop there. The idea one of the forum members said that we the consumers effect wal-mart is true to a point. But if you ever noticed its mostly poor to middle class that shop there not due to their want but to their participation at the store due to their checkbook status. I mean I see many parents bring their children in the store causing all mayhem because they cannot afford a baby sitter. I mean beggars cannot be choosers is more the tune at walmart.

[Jeff Matthews]

I hear you, Jay, and there's no doubt Wal-Mart is supplanting "mom and pop." But how do you punish a seller who is so good at his operations that he can sell you things for less? It really is a strange sort of irony to want to punish Wal-Mart. I cannot think of anything Wal-Mart does in general that is illegal. Wal-Mart might be cut-throat in using its economic power to get what it wants, but trust me, if either you or I had the power to dictate the terms of our bargains to the same extent, we would do so. There is nothing at all wrong with that - except when you get into the arena of restraint of trade issues. IMO, restraint of trade analysis should go beyond the ability to annihilate your competitor. It should look at whether the annihilation is a result of efficiency and whether, after the annihilation, there is a resultant act of price-gouging. At least, I think this is the way it should be analyzed in a Wal-Mart analysis. Bill Gates' Microsoft has different issues.

[Jeff Matthews]

Since the right the bear arms is.......

Wal-mart I hate to shop there but sometimes I do...... I dislike how people are also forced to shop there. The idea one of the forum members said that we the consumers effect wal-mart is true to a point. But if you ever noticed its mostly poor to middle class that shop there not due to their want but to their participation at the store due to their checkbook status. I mean I see many parents bring their children in the store causing all mayhem because they cannot afford a baby sitter. I mean beggars cannot be choosers is more the tune at walmart.

All this time, I thought is was "the right to bare arms!" [][+o(]

By the way, I don't think the poor are forced to shop at Wal-Mart. Before Wal-Mart, they paid higher prices at other places. They now have found a place with better prices. I would call that "choice" - and for the poor, a lucky choice.

[oldtimer]

Jay it is a slippery slope towards invalidating not only civil rights but the entire constitution when using the logic that "the reason xxx is now out-dated." George did come back and burned the White House down if I recall history correctly. Bearing arms is a right, but I would also agree that "well regulated" can and probably should mean at least a modicum of responsibility.

[Kriton]

OK, just to stir this up - what kills more people? Automobiles

driven by people with licenses to drive, or handguns? Are there

more automobiles than handguns? Hmmm...last time I was on the

road, having a license did NOT equate to having a brain. Also, I

think, at least inTexas where background checks and a 10 hour class are

mandatory in order to get a license to carry, that those folks (like

me) break any kind of law in such a small percentage as to be almost

negligible.

But you have the absolute right to believe your government, to be

subservient, to believe that you have a vote and some modicum of

control over the process, and I applaud your faith. I vote, I get involved, and I hope you

are right, I just don't share your optimism.

I do also beleive that if Walmart has found a better mousetrap, they

should be allowed to exploit that mousetrap. You make a better

car, cheaper with better gas mileage - you should be able to undercut

everybody (remember the Japanese cars of the 70's versus the gas

guzzlers of the American auto industry)? You adapt or you go

away, capitalism at its best.

You all have probably heard about the fight over the "Wright Amendment"

here at Love Field airport in Dallas. Essentially what this is ia

American Airlines trying to monopolize long flight airtravel in the DFW

area, by enforcing a decades old rule that stifles Southwest Airlines

ability to fly cheap flights out of a competing Dalls

airport...American is poorly run, losing money, paying executives

million dollar bonuses and showing substantial losses while Southwest

has recorded several quarters of respectable profits - I say if

Southwest can do it cheaper, give me a better bang for my buck - and

American can't compete, oh WELL...but our legislators are spending just

gobs of money arguing over this, pandering to the special interests -

it just makes no sense. Imminent domain in order to secure

profits for private business is wrong, JUST as wrong to give massive

tax breaks to corporations to come to my city, and then jack up my

property taxes to make up the difference...

Just my 2c again.

K

[Jeff Matthews]

... JUST as wrong to give massive tax breaks to corporations to come to my city, and then jack up my property taxes to make up the difference...

Just my 2c again.

K

Bingo! There should be a federal law that criminalizes the giving relief from taxes as an inducement to do business in a jurisdiction.

[flannj]

This thread makes me wonder if today, there are more Americans (including myself) that are finding the views of the Libertarian platform appealing. At least from the aspect of personal liberties, personal responsibility, and trying to limit the control of government in our lives and communities.

-Jim

[Jay481985]

All this time, I thought is was "the right to bare arms!" [][+o(]

By the way, I don't think the poor are forced to shop at Wal-Mart. Before Wal-Mart, they paid higher prices at other places. They now have found a place with better prices. I would call that "choice" - and for the poor, a lucky choice.

walmart though if you look at it entraps you. Subconsciously you say I know x item is cheaper somewhere else but i am already here and its only 10 cents more..... so you buy more etc etc etc. Also the only reason why I goto Walmart is to buy the mobil 1 motor oil in the gallon size, no where else do I see the gallon size mobil one nor at that price. I mean the poor basically today have to shop at walmart or face bankruptcy. I mean look they work there (I mean all the minimum paid workers out there) and then they have to purchase the goods from there.... hmmm does this sound like the turn of the 20th century and the dawn of industrialization where workers did not get paid in dollars and cents but in company money to buy only in their general store??? I mean even poor people weigh the if I shop somewhere else etc etc but walmart made it convienent, time cutter, gas cutter by having a one stop shop for everything.

Also with the other person saying its a slippery slope if we invalidate a amendment. I believe a Supreme Court Justice once wrote that in his dissent in a case. But anyways I know its a slippery slope but many laws and such are out of zeitgiest (spirit of the times) and sadly American Law is playing catch up to today's Technology and Terrorism. I mean whomever brought up the case with the cars kill more people than handguns. It is a choice we as americans made that we weighed travel more acceptable then the dangers associated with it. If we thought there should be no auto accidents no one would drive but it is an accepted risk we take by driving. And cars and guns are not apples to apples. I mean a car serves a purpose of movement. A gun is usually for sport/self defense but they do not serve as important role in today's society. Guns did serve a vital purpose of defense when there was no ligitamate police and was used when people needed to hunt for food. Sadly anyone who goes hunting today is more for trophy and not for the need to eat.

I try to weigh in any factors and I don't like to be called a republican nor democrat. I like to pick and choose my own opinions then to stick to one side. I mean this is America where atleast this country I can do that! I find neither side the one ends all to my needs but I find both do have issues I cannot fully agree to.

[Jay481985]

All this time, I thought is was "the right to bare arms!" [][+o(]

By the way, I don't think the poor are forced to shop at Wal-Mart. Before Wal-Mart, they paid higher prices at other places. They now have found a place with better prices. I would call that "choice" - and for the poor, a lucky choice.

walmart though if you look at it entraps you. Subconsciously you say I know x item is cheaper somewhere else but i am already here and its only 10 cents more..... so you buy more etc etc etc. Also the only reason why I goto Walmart is to buy the mobil 1 motor oil in the gallon size, no where else do I see the gallon size mobil one nor at that price. I mean the poor basically today have to shop at walmart or face bankruptcy. I mean look they work there (I mean all the minimum paid workers out there) and then they have to purchase the goods from there.... hmmm does this sound like the turn of the 20th century and the dawn of industrialization where workers did not get paid in dollars and cents but in company money to buy only in their general store??? I mean even poor people weigh the if I shop somewhere else etc etc but walmart made it convienent, time cutter, gas cutter by having a one stop shop for everything.

Also with the other person saying its a slippery slope if we invalidate a amendment. I believe a Supreme Court Justice once wrote that in his dissent in a case. But anyways I know its a slippery slope but many laws and such are out of zeitgiest (spirit of the times) and sadly American Law is playing catch up to today's Technology and Terrorism. I mean whomever brought up the case with the cars kill more people than handguns. It is a choice we as americans made that we weighed travel more acceptable then the dangers associated with it. If we thought there should be no auto accidents no one would drive but it is an accepted risk we take by driving. And cars and guns are not apples to apples. I mean a car serves a purpose of movement. A gun is usually for sport/self defense but they do not serve as important role in today's society. Guns did serve a vital purpose of defense when there was no ligitamate police and was used when people needed to hunt for food. Sadly anyone who goes hunting today is more for trophy and not for the need to eat.

I try to weigh in any factors and I don't like to be called a republican nor democrat. I like to pick and choose my own opinions then to stick to one side. I mean this is America where atleast this country I can do that! I find neither side the one ends all to my needs but I find both do have issues I cannot fully agree to.

[mungkiman]

Walmart - your source for cheap chinese crap.

Do NOT shop at Walmart. That is the choice.