Texas Special Session: Eminent Domain

[TX_1824]

http://texas.ahrc.com/engine.php/submission;page=input,action=display,id=713

State represenative, Frank Corte, Jr. (San Antonio), is calling for a special session to defend the rights of property owners through a state constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court rulling on eminent domain. If agreed upon it will appear on the November ballot. Good for you Frank Corte!!

Are any other states considering such actions?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

[The Duke]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

You are a douche bag.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

You are a douche bag.

Oh, and it was all subsidized by the Alexandria, TX sales tax. How am I a douche bag for pointing out how George W Bush profitted from this? Quit being such a Bush apoligist.

[opebo]

Obviously any money the Bush family has was garnered through political influence.

That said, Texans must be awfully obsessed with their shabby ranches and trailer parks.  I don't understand why anyone would mind eminent domain takings - you get paid for the 'property' anyway.

[2952-0-0]

Score one for sheer commmon sense

[The Duke]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

You are a douche bag.

Oh, and it was all subsidized by the Alexandria, TX sales tax. How am I a douche bag for pointing out how George W Bush profitted from this? Quit being such a Bush apoligist.

I pointed out that you are nothing but a partisan hack.  The voters of Arlington approved the stadium.  Just like people here in San Diego voted to approve a new stadium for the Padres.  All these stadiums pay for themselves and have been vital parts of urban renewal projects in places like Minneapolis and Washington DC.  I think if you asked the residents in Arlington if they'd do it again, they'd say yes.

[Sam Spade]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

You are a douche bag.

Oh, and it was all subsidized by the Alexandria, TX sales tax. How am I a douche bag for pointing out how George W Bush profitted from this? Quit being such a Bush apoligist.

I pointed out that you are nothing but a partisan hack.  The voters of Arlington approved the stadium.  Just like people here in San Diego voted to approve a new stadium for the Padres.  All these stadiums pay for themselves and have been vital parts of urban renewal projects in places like Minneapolis and Washington DC.  I think if you asked the residents in Arlington if they'd do it again, they'd say yes.

I don't know whether the Arlington stadium was like this, but in Houston, the new stadium built for the Astros (baseball team) there is owned by the city.

The Astros have a 30-year lease on the stadium, but the city owns the structure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

You are a douche bag.

Oh, and it was all subsidized by the Alexandria, TX sales tax. How am I a douche bag for pointing out how George W Bush profitted from this? Quit being such a Bush apoligist.

I pointed out that you are nothing but a partisan hack.  The voters of Arlington approved the stadium.  Just like people here in San Diego voted to approve a new stadium for the Padres.  All these stadiums pay for themselves and have been vital parts of urban renewal projects in places like Minneapolis and Washington DC.  I think if you asked the residents in Arlington if they'd do it again, they'd say yes.

No, basically it was the Arlington, TX taxpayers inflating the value of Bush's baseball team. They had to raise the sales tax just for Dubya. Bush and his friends bought the team for $86 million, the team lost a bunch of games, and then they sold it for $250 million.

And no, the team owns the stadium.

http://thediamondangle.com/crank/20000812.html

[The Duke]

So you mean that baseball teams owned by George W Bush won't be able seize land in Alexandria, TX by eminent domain? That sounds like a good plan.

You are a douche bag.

Oh, and it was all subsidized by the Alexandria, TX sales tax. How am I a douche bag for pointing out how George W Bush profitted from this? Quit being such a Bush apoligist.

I pointed out that you are nothing but a partisan hack.  The voters of Arlington approved the stadium.  Just like people here in San Diego voted to approve a new stadium for the Padres.  All these stadiums pay for themselves and have been vital parts of urban renewal projects in places like Minneapolis and Washington DC.  I think if you asked the residents in Arlington if they'd do it again, they'd say yes.

No, basically it was the Arlington, TX taxpayers inflating the value of Bush's baseball team. They had to raise the sales tax just for Dubya. Bush and his friends bought the team for $86 million, the team lost a bunch of games, and then they sold it for $250 million.

And no, the team owns the stadium.

http://thediamondangle.com/crank/20000812.html

They weren't a losing team, they made the playoffs.

[John Dibble]

Obviously any money the Bush family has was garnered through political influence.

Right, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they own oil companies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't expect a drifter like you to understand it, but the reasons are numerous. First off, there's the idea of home - home is more than just a house, but I won't bother explaining because you wouldn't understand that. Second, it's an awful inconvenience to have to move - this you'll understand, because it's a lot of work(move your furniture, find a new place to live, ect.), and in the case of eminent domain it isn't work you want to do. Third, you might like the area you live in and another home in the area could not be available, or you might just like your house and be unable to find another like it, or just various other nice things about your area you will be losing. Fourth, even though you are paid, you are often not paid market value - thusly you are at a loss, you are paid far less than your house and land is actually worth. There's probably some other reasons I've neglected to mention, as well.

[David S]

http://texas.ahrc.com/engine.php/submission;page=input,action=display,id=713

State represenative, Frank Corte, Jr. (San Antonio), is calling for a special session to defend the rights of property owners through a state constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court rulling on eminent domain. If agreed upon it will appear on the November ballot. Good for you Frank Corte!!

Are any other states considering such actions?

That's a damn good idea. I'm not sure what Michigan law says on the subject, but I think I'll write to my state reps and suggest that we need similar protections.