posted October 24, 2004 01:20 PM            

1. City, County and State zoning laws restricting the uses property owners may make of their property. City, County and state property taxes levied against private property and real estate to fund city, county and state government and public education.

2. Progressive and graduated income taxes levied against the income produced by employed individuals and against the business profits of businesses and corporations paid to state and federal government. Everyone should pay "their fair share."

3. Inheritance taxes levied against the estates of deceased individuals by federal and state governments, restricting the inheritance of money and property passed on to the children or other inheritors of those who are deceased.

4. Seizure of personal property, including money and real property by the IRS, DEA and police departments for those suspected of crimes.

5. Belief that the Federal Reserve should regulate the printing of money and control the economy to prevent boom and bust cycles of business activity. That, borrowers and depositors should be protected by Federal Reserve Banking regulations relating to borrowing, deposits and issuing of credit to borrowers.

6. Belief that the FCC should regulate who may own television stations, radio stations, newspapers and how many an individual, business or corporation may own in any market or in total. Belief that the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission should determine safety rules for the roads, the air, who may drive/fly, how they must operate their vehicles and what cargos may be transported on the nations highways or through the air. Believe that federal and state government should require seat belts and their use when operating a motor vehicle/airplane and that all motor vehicles and aircraft should be insured before drivers/pilots permits are issued and motor vehicles/aircraft are licensed.

7. Believe that state owned and federally owned land, including state and national park lands must be protected from misuse by individuals and businesses and regulations/enviornmental laws issued to restrict their use by individuals and businesses.

8. Believe the Department of Labor should set regulations on employment practices and enforce those regulations in the business community. Believe the Social Security Administration should collect taxes from individuals and businesses to fund the retirement of individuals when they retire.

9. Believe that cities, counties and states should be able to establish planning commissions to plan development of communities, zoning of privately held real estate and that cities, counties and states should be permitted to seize real property through eminent domain proceedings, and pay for the property, to enhance their planned communities, or to convert the property to a higher and better use.

10. Believe states and the federal government should require education for all children, that public education should be required and free to parents of school age children, that property taxes, income taxes, lotto game proceeds and other public funding should be spent on education in the public school systems.

posted October 24, 2004 09:15 PM              

It's your property... use it how you like *shrug* I'm not yet a property owner Although, I'm not sure that I'm understanding this clearly.

2. Progressive and graduated income taxes levied against the income produced by employed individuals and against the business profits of businesses and corporations paid to state and federal government. Everyone should pay "their fair share."

Again, I sure wish you would have used more common language here... BUT... I'm all for taxes. Personally, I'm in support of a flat tax and I'd like to see all states adopt a Luxury Tax.

3. Inheritance taxes levied against the estates of deceased individuals by federal and state governments, restricting the inheritance of money and property passed on to the children or other inheritors of those who are deceased.

Seems to me that money has already been taxed once. I don't understand why the government feels they are entitled to double tax. Seems a bit greedy to me.

4. Seizure of personal property, including money and real property by the IRS, DEA and police departments for those suspected of crimes.

I am against this. Other people are effected by these types of things... including innocent spouses and children.

5. Belief that the Federal Reserve should regulate the printing of money and control the economy to prevent boom and bust cycles of business activity. That, borrowers and depositors should be protected by Federal Reserve Banking regulations relating to borrowing, deposits and issuing of credit to borrowers.

Honestly, I don't know enough about this subject to comment.

6. Belief that the FCC should regulate who may own television stations, radio stations, newspapers and how many an individual, business or corporation may own in any market or in total. Belief that the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission should determine safety rules for the roads, the air, who may drive/fly, how they must operate their vehicles and what cargos may be transported on the nations highways or through the air. Believe that federal and state government should require seat belts and their use when operating a motor vehicle/airplane and that all motor vehicles and aircraft should be insured before drivers/pilots permits are issued and motor vehicles/aircraft are licensed.

I believe the FCC is too biased an organization to police the media. I can understand the need to keep a watchful eye on network television for anything obscene... BUT these people need to hold ALL individuals accountable to the same rules (i.e. Oprah vs. Stern).

The Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission are necessary. There are too many nut jobs that would take things TOO far if they weren't required to behave.

As far as seat belts go... that's really a tough one. As far as kids go, I totally support it. There are too many negligent parents out there that would kill their children in accidents by not requiring the proper restraints to protect them... as far as adults go... that's a tough one. On one hand, I think ... "Eh.. who cares, they're grown... let 'em be retarded." On the other hand, their retardedness would cost tax payer money to save their lives because they aren't bright enough to wear seat belts.

I am totally in favor of insurance being mandatory.

7. Believe that state owned and federally owned land, including state and national park lands must be protected from misuse by individuals and businesses and regulations/environmental laws issued to restrict their use by individuals and businesses.

Agreed.

8. Believe the Department of Labor should set regulations on employment practices and enforce those regulations in the business community. Believe the Social Security Administration should collect taxes from individuals and businesses to fund the retirement of individuals when they retire.

Agreed, on both points.

9. Believe that cities, counties and states should be able to establish planning commissions to plan development of communities, zoning of privately held real estate and that cities, counties and states should be permitted to seize real property through eminent domain proceedings, and pay for the property, to enhance their planned communities, or to convert the property to a higher and better use.

Not quite sure about this one either? Do you mean ... government taking away OTHER people's property to do with as they please? If so, then I am VERY MUCH against it.

10. Believe states and the federal government should require education for all children, that public education should be required and free to parents of school age children, that property taxes, income taxes, lotto game proceeds and other public funding should be spent on education in the public school systems.

Agreed.

11. Believe labor unions should have the right to organize workers into labor unions and the government should require employers to negotiate workers wages and work conditions with that labor union, exclusively.

Neither my husband, or I are a part of any type of Union... but I don't see anything wrong with it.

posted October 25, 2004 07:31 PM            

This story may answer some of your questions about "eminent domain" and how it's being misused and abused by cities, counties and states.

Thor L. Halvorssen
Monday, Oct. 25, 2004

William Minnich and his nephew Bill were unaware that New York’s Empire State Development Corporation had condemned their building. As owners of Minic Custom Woodwork in East Harlem, a thriving family business for more than 75 years, the Minnichs knew that there was nothing wrong with their building. Nevertheless, the state’s development authority planned to transfer the Minnich family’s property to a private developer who wanted the land for a Home Depot parking structure.

In Port Chester, N.Y., Bill Brody, a hardware store owner, received no notice when the local development authority condemned his business location. Ironically, Brody has spent significant sums of money purchasing and renovating four adjacent buildings. Again, there is no public crisis requiring Brody to surrender his land to the local authority; there is only greed. The Port Chester authorities want his land so they can give it to a businessman who plans to build a Stop & Shop.

Last month, after years of bad publicity and mounting legal challenges, Gov. George Pataki finally signed into law a bill requiring the state of New York, state agencies, municipalities and public authorities to inform property owners via certified letter when the state intends to seize their property.
The Fifth Amendment allows government to legally take private property for “public use” to build needed services like bridges and roads; the legal term for the government’s prerogative over private property is “eminent domain.” However, until Gov. Pataki signed last month’s bill, a property owner had no way of knowing when his home or place of business had been condemned. Property owners also had no way of knowing that they have the right to fight the arbitrary confiscation of their property. Abuse of eminent domain is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Pataki vetoed a similar bill last year, even though it had passed the Legislature with unanimous bipartisan support. New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer had opposed the law, claiming it would be too costly to use the U.S. mail to inform property owners of their rights. Apparently, Spitzer favors the practice of publishing cramped, hard-to-read advertisements in the legal notice sections of newspapers.

Spitzer’s preferred methods are certainly more effective from a practical standpoint — it doesn’t require a law degree to understand that one reason the authorities wish to keep property owners from contesting condemnation is because those owners could well prevail in court against abuse of eminent domain.

Laws are not retroactive, so the eminent domain cases being litigated are not affected by the new law. Brody and the Minnichs are fortunate to be championed by New York’s Atlantic Legal Foundation and the Washington-based Institute for Justice.

These law firms provide free representation and have already succeeded in bringing about an exceptionally favorable settlement for the Minnich family. Though the Brody case is ongoing, the tireless work of Atlantic Legal and IJ ensured that the Legislature could no longer ignore the manifest injustice in the notification process.

Eminent domain abuse is a problem across the country, and IJ has an especially impressive track record doing battle against it. In New Jersey IJ tangled with Donald Trump when his company persuaded state authorities to condemn an elderly widow’s Atlantic City home (Trump needed her land for a limousine parking lot for his casino customers).

It gets worse. Billionaire Trump’s eminent domain apprentices tried to force the widow to hand over her land for a fraction of its market value. IJ stood up to Trump and protected the widow’s rights. She continues to live in her home.

The Supreme Court announced three weeks ago that it will hear Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., a case being litigated by IJ in which a local authority is using eminent domain to take the homes of working-class folks to build a luxury hotel, health club and conference center. Their reason? They wish to increase the city's real estate tax base.

“People get really angry when their homes are taken so that someone richer can live there,” says Dana Berliner, an IJ attorney. “Every house in the country would generate more tax revenue if it were turned into a bigger house or a Costco.”

IJ’s successful petition to the Supreme Court was supported by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation. The brief argues that the unconstitutional expansion of the ‘public use’ clause eminent domain has given unfair advantage to rich and powerful interests over poorer property owners.

Their brief was joined by two George Mason University economists — James Buchanan, a 1986 Nobel Prize winner, and Gordon Tullock of the Mercatus Center.

Atlantic Legal, Pacific Legal and the Institute for Justice are part of what is known as the freedom-based public interest law movement, an informal affiliation of some three dozen legal foundations that work diligently to uphold the principles of the U.S. Constitution. These independent organizations work across the legal arena to defend freedom of speech, school choice, workers’ rights, religious liberty and economic rights. They work to ensure that no American is denied the fundamental liberties enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

A new book tells their story. Available this month, "Bringing Justice to the People" (Heritage Books, 2004) chronicles the remarkable 30-year history of the freedom-based public interest law movement (full disclosure: I contributed the chapter on freedom of speech). An enterprising TV producer will find in this book’s rich descriptions of landmark cases a veritable blueprint for a “Law and Order”-type television — something on the order of “Freedom and the Law: Stories from the Champions of Individual Rights.”

Susette Kelo, one of the New London homeowners, brings to life the importance of their work: “It is going to mean everything in the world if the U.S. Supreme Court saves my home. I’m so happy for myself and my elderly neighbors, who just want to stay in their homes.”

posted October 25, 2004 09:38 PM              

**************
Stealing Home

BY ROBERT BRYCE • THE TEXAS OBSERVER, MAY 9, 1997

George W. Bush loves baseball. And why not? After all, baseball has been very good to the governor. When it comes to power, the governor is a true triple-threat. Consider his record: (1) His initial baseball investment of $600,000 carries the current potential of a 2,500 percent return. (2) Through savvy P.R. and political maneuvering, he and his partners have persuaded a city and the state to directly subsidize a facility for their business. (3) Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners have also successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes.

Yet whether the public interest issue is taxes, size of government, property rights, or public subsidies of private sports ventures, Bush’s personal ownership interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team has been wildly at odds with his publicly declared positions on those issues. And ongoing litigation over the Ballpark deal has revealed documents showing that beginning in 1990, the Rangers management—which included Bush as a managing general partner—conspired to use the government’s power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.

Briefly, here’s what happened on the Ballpark deal. Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

• Pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium;

• Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

• Give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium;

• Allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million;

Finally, after twelve years as the sole occupant and primary beneficiary of the stadium project, the Rangers, a privately owned business, can take title to the most expensive stadium ever built in Texas for the $60 million worth of rent and upkeep they will have already paid the city.

Since he became governor, Bush has not forgotten the Rangers. Although he put his stocks and other assets in a blind trust when he took office, he kept under his own control his ownership interest in the Rangers (held through a company called GWB Rangers, Inc.) Based on published estimates of his net worth, that interest represents his single most valuable asset.

posted October 25, 2004 09:42 PM              

Before that, my fam lost land that is now 3-95.