Move out.

[truthshift]

I was just wondering how you feel about imminent domain.

Does the state reserve the right to uproot people from their property despite compensation?

Is it ethical to expect people to make a move for the betterment of the society as a whole?

For:

A freeway?

An military base?

A commerce center(like a mall or tourist attraction)?

An airport?

What about our push on animals and their natural habitat? Do we have the right to move them out and/or destroy their homes for the betterment of our society? Usually, there is no compensation for them.

With an expanding human population, should animal rights take precedence over a need(want?) for human expansion?

 

[b&wpac4]

I was just wondering how you feel about imminent domain.

Does the state reserve the right to uproot people from their property despite compensation?

Is it ethical to expect people to make a move for the betterment of the society as a whole?

For:

A freeway?

An military base?

A commerce center(like a mall or tourist attraction)?

An airport?

What about our push on animals and their natural habitat? Do we have the right to move them out and/or destroy their homes for the betterment of our society? Usually, there is no compensation for them.

With an expanding human population, should animal rights take precedence over a need(want?) for human expansion?

It is a necessary evil when it comes to building things that are in the public interest. My personal opinion is that those are restricted to schools, roads, and the like.

 

[truthshift]

It is a necessary evil when it comes to building things that are in the public interest. My personal opinion is that those are restricted to schools, roads, and the like.

What about urban centers dying out and this push for suburbia expansion since the 50's? It's not an effective use of space by any means. Should we try and get people to move back into the cities to be efficient with our space, rather than taking up more and more space that we have not already used?

I look at the city I live in, Phoenix. It's actually comprised of a number of small towns that were consumed by suburban expansion; like Surprise, Peoria, Avondale, Glendale, Mesa, Tempe, Apache Junction, ect ect. It's now referred to as a whole as "The Valley". To commute across the valley at this point, it takes approximately 40 minutes without traffic, and to be realistic, it takes about an hour and a half to 2 hours with traffic. And, it's still growing.

I understand that people expect a certain amount of comfortable living space, but is it not more important to conserve the remaining habitat the exists on the borders of our major cities and towns? Wouldn't that also serve to help reduce the amount of iminent domain cases as there would be few highways and schools being built out in suburbia, rather an expansion for public services in high density areas, that may or may not entail pushing people out of their homes to expand.

Would a higher concentration of people in a space not cut down on traffic commute times, reduce traffic polution, and certainly take up less natural habitat?

Just thinking.

 

[b&wpac4]

What about urban centers dying out and this push for suburbia expansion since the 50's? It's not an effective use of space by any means. Should we try and get people to move back into the cities to be efficient with our space, rather than taking up more and more space that we have not already used?

I look at the city I live in, Phoenix. It's actually comprised of a number of small towns that were consumed by suburban expansion; like Surprise, Peoria, Avondale, Glendale, Mesa, Tempe, Apache Junction, ect ect. It's now referred to as a whole as "The Valley". To commute across the valley at this point, it takes approximately 40 minutes without traffic, and to be realistic, it takes about an hour and a half to 2 hours with traffic. And, it's still growing.

I understand that people expect a certain amount of comfortable living space, but is it not more important to conserve the remaining habitat the exists on the borders of our major cities and towns? Wouldn't that also serve to help reduce the amount of iminent domain cases as there would be few highways and schools being built out in suburbia, rather an expansion for public services in high density areas, that may or may not entail pushing people out of their homes to expand.

Would a higher concentration of people in a space not cut down on traffic commute times, reduce traffic polution, and certainly take up less natural habitat?

Just thinking.

What you described would not, in my opinion (an opinion the Supreme Court does not share), fall under.

 

[Chesterton]

I was just wondering how you feel about imminent domain.

Does the state reserve the right to uproot people from their property despite compensation?

Is it ethical to expect people to make a move for the betterment of the society as a whole?

I think it's only legitimate in case of national emergency, or possibly in a rare case where a location could be potentially vital for a future military defense scenario. But never for commerce, never for convenience of transportation, never for general "betterment of society".

What about our push on animals and their natural habitat? Do we have the right to move them out and/or destroy their homes for the betterment of our society?

Yes. If you're a Christian, you know that God will provide for them as He clothes the lillies of the field. If you're an atheist, you know that one species can create environmental pressures on other species, and the latter will either adapt or die. Either way it doesn't matter.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't agree with imminent domain when it comes to uprooting humans.

When it comes to animals, though, I'm a little torn. God gave us supremacy over the animals. I think we ought to be responsible when we are building something that will uproot animals from their native lands. There's nothing wrong with looking into alternatives and helping these animals.

 

[God-free]

I was just wondering how you feel about imminent domain.

Does the state reserve the right to uproot people from their property despite compensation?

This happened to my grandfather. He was forced to leave the home he (literally) built. The house sat empty until after his death. Finally, it was torn down and the land was used for... a McDonald's fast food restaurant! You can probably guess how I feel about imminent domain.

What about our push on animals and their natural habitat? Do we have the right to move them out and/or destroy their homes for the betterment of our society? Usually, there is no compensation for them.

With an expanding human population, should animal rights take precedence over a need(want?) for human expansion?

It's painfully obvious that the world's human population is out of control. I'd love to see a worldwide, voluntary reduction in new births so this kind of expansion could become unneccessary. No, I don't think we have the right to take more than our fair share. Non-human species are as entitled to this planet's resources as we are. Shame, shame on us.

~Barbara

 

[Washington]

When the Best Buy, the consumer electronics retailer, wanted to build its headquarters in Richfield Minnesota they acquired the needed property through eminent domain, displacing 82 residents and an automobile dealership under the guise of "promoting economic development." On average each home owner received $24,000 more than the market value of their home, and relocation costs. None of the displaced owners balked at the deal. However, it also cost the state a substantial amount of money to redesign and rebuild the highway off ramp to the headquarters (BB did help with some of the cost).

 

[billwald]

Except for roads and military use, it is plain stealing.

 

[truthshift]

When the Best Buy, the consumer electronics retailer, wanted to build its headquarters in Richfield Minnesota they acquired the needed property through eminent domain, displacing 82 residents and an automobile dealership under the guise of "promoting economic development." On average each home owner received $24,000 more than the market value of their home, and relocation costs. None of the displaced owners balked at the deal. However, it also cost the state a substantial amount of money to redesign and rebuild the highway off ramp to the headquarters (BB did help with some of the cost).

That brings up the relatively un-discussed issue of the amount of taxpayer money involved in these deals. I imagine that any structure or plan that the state is willing to pay out premium amounts of money for would pay for itself in due time, but is the amount of money used in the short term beneficial to to the community at all? Most of the time, loans are taken out to complete these projects.

 

[cantata]

I've honestly never thought about this. It's interesting!

I'm not sure what the laws are in this country.

For a school, a road, a hospital - maybe it's justified. I can't see justification for commercial enterprises, though.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

For a school, a road, a hospital - maybe it's justified. I can't see justification for commercial enterprises, though.

That's how I feel about it.

 

[HollandScotts]

What about urban centers dying out and this push for suburbia expansion since the 50's? It's not an effective use of space by any means. Should we try and get people to move back into the cities to be efficient with our space, rather than taking up more and more space that we have not already used?

Heck no!I don't care if it is a waste of space, you can't force people to live in little boxes in dense cities. I'ld rather die and go to hell than have to live in a city. All that crime, and traffic, and people, such stupid people, city government always taking away individual rights to the good of the city. You couldn't pay me to live in a city, and God help the poor fool that tries to force me to.

Would a higher concentration of people in a space not cut down on traffic commute times, reduce traffic polution, and certainly take up less natural habitat?

In my experience, it makes traffic worse.

This happened to my grandfather. He was forced to leave the home he (literally) built. The house sat empty until after his death. Finally, it was torn down and the land was used for... a McDonald's fast food restaurant! You can probably guess how I feel about imminent domain.

I think every member of the SC that voted to allow cities to steal your property and give it to a private developer should be hung for treason.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

I heard recently that in Miami (this was in the 70s I think) when it was being built into the swanky destination it is today a retirement home was closed down rather suddenly to make way for condos.

Elderly people in wheelchairs were cast out on the streets with nowhere to go.

I heard this from someone who lived there (in Miami...not the home) at the time.

Not a good case for imminent domain.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I was just wondering how you feel about imminent domain.

Does the state reserve the right to uproot people from their property despite compensation?

Is it ethical to expect people to make a move for the betterment of the society as a whole?

For:

A freeway?

An military base?

A commerce center(like a mall or tourist attraction)?

An airport?

What about our push on animals and their natural habitat? Do we have the right to move them out and/or destroy their homes for the betterment of our society? Usually, there is no compensation for them.

With an expanding human population, should animal rights take precedence over a need(want?) for human expansion?

The law is like a woman's reason for not having sex before marriage. It sounds good and you can't question it. It is also subject to the convenience of a few other things...

I know a few women who were like this and are not anymore, I know of an area of virgin forest by a river that was to be left that way until Hell froze over. I don't have to tell you it didn't take his grave growing cold until developers got an inclination to make that virgin forest prime housing properties. Its all legal and against the dead guy's wishes. I guess money talks.

The point being Your rights of imminent domain or whatever are yours until someone with more juice wants what you have. After that all bets are off.