53 replies to this topic

[Nonprofit]

Quote

TechHarper Posted Today, 06:36 PM
Also, the only reason I made any statement at all was because Ru misunderstood my reason for asking G about his post. Ru apparently assumed I was attacking him when I was merely asking for clarification on a post that seemed well-thought out but I was having difficulty understanding how it fit into the rest of the thread.

Quite frankly, I think G's post would fit better as the opening for a thread discussing the reasons people hold particular political views. This thread degenerated quite quickly due in large part to the quality of the article that started it, but I think G's post and the topic involved in it would make an interesting discussion.

Actually TH,  you are right when you said G1223's post would fit better as the opening for a thread but that wasn't the case here.  However many original topics will generate some great replies, leading to some wonderful spin off topics such as G's contribution here.  Only in this thread you must get passed the cookies and the songs first.  I'm just sorry his post sort of got lost.


We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.
-- F. A. Hayek

[G1223]

I posted a example out of my life. But use it as the first post for another thread.

[Nonprofit]

Glad to hear it wasn't wasted G.  Was an interesting read.

Thanks for adding it here for us to read.  

Ru

[Norville]

Lin731 said:

Ummmm...I think most of us DID contribute in a serious vein to the thread early on. It just sort of devolved from there. In all honesty though, to a degree the post got the response it deserved really.

I think that RuReddy doesn't appreciate the long-standing EI tradition, which sometimes even works, of trying to defuse certain threads by, for example, asking for doughnuts, or being completely irrelevant by, say, singing "Scarborough Fair".

Chipper said:

fact is, neither side is good. they both suck.

I think that politics has become brainless and useless, and it's quite obvious to me that "the best and brightest" go into other fields -- they're certainly not in politics. The way our society's gone, with few people able to think critically, we get the politicians we deserve. "My side good, with God! Your side evil, with Satan!" *yawn*

[Lin731]

Quote

So pass the Hershey bars and graham crackers, folks, and here's Lin's request:

Awwww thanks Waterpanther...I'm misting up here!

Quote

When I said "they don't contribute at all," I meant the specific posts quoted (not the individuals who made them... sorry if that's the way it sounded  ). Also, the only reason I made any statement at all was because Ru misunderstood my reason for asking G about his post. Ru apparently assumed I was attacking him when I was merely asking for clarification on a post that seemed well-thought out but I was having difficulty understanding how it fit into the rest of the thread.

That's okay Techharper, I just didn't want you thinking we were flat out goofballs all the time. I mean we ARE goofballs but not always. FIRST we give a thoughtful response THEN we sing songs and make SMORES

Quote

I think that RuReddy doesn't appreciate the long-standing EI tradition, which sometimes even works, of trying to defuse certain threads by, for example, asking for doughnuts, or being completely irrelevant by, say, singing "Scarborough Fair".

Norville,
Exacttttttttttttttttttttly! Sometimes a situation just calls for a donut run or a rousing chorus of Scarborough Fair.

[Nonny]

Norville, on Apr 6 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

Lin731 said:

Ummmm...I think most of us DID contribute in a serious vein to the thread early on. It just sort of devolved from there. In all honesty though, to a degree the post got the response it deserved really.

I think that RuReddy doesn't appreciate the long-standing EI tradition, which sometimes even works, of trying to defuse certain threads by, for example, asking for doughnuts, or being completely irrelevant by, say, singing "Scarborough Fair".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So that's what asking for doughnuts is all about here!    I meant to ask.  

Nonny

[Godeskian]

It's an old, old habit, that's about as much use as an old, old donut. Speaking purely for myself, i've never liked the 'donut party' notion, anymore than forcefully dragging a thread off-topic by quoting songlyrics in it.

[Lin731]

Quote

It's an old, old habit, that's about as much use as an old, old donut. Speaking purely for myself, i've never liked the 'donut party' notion, anymore than forcefully dragging a thread off-topic by quoting songlyrics in it.

What WAS the topic of this thread? Seemed more like a dissertation on evil Liberals than it was a topic to debate about.

[Nonny]

Lin731, on Apr 7 2005, 09:00 AM, said:

Quote

It's an old, old habit, that's about as much use as an old, old donut. Speaking purely for myself, i've never liked the 'donut party' notion, anymore than forcefully dragging a thread off-topic by quoting songlyrics in it.

What WAS the topic of this thread? Seemed more like a dissertation on evil Liberals than it was a topic to debate about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It works!  It works!  

Nonny

[Nonprofit]

Quote

Lin731 Posted Today, 12:00 PM
What WAS the topic of this thread?

People with attitudes.

Quote

Steven_Q Posted Today, 10:24 AM
  It's an old, old habit, that's about as much use as an old, old donut. Speaking purely for myself, i've never liked the 'donut party' notion, anymore than forcefully dragging a thread off-topic by quoting songlyrics in it.

Yup,  I agree.

[Rhea]

Truthfully, where's the point in "discussing" what was posted, which was another boring rant about eeeeevul liberals?    

[eloisel]

I disagree that economic development is a liberal or conservative issue.  While there are larger laws that effect economic development, it is one of those grass roots functions - like on a municipal level.  Government can not take property without compensating the owner.  While the seller would like a higher price than market value of the property, gov't is purchasing that property with taxpayer dollars.  So, while Joe B. might like a million for his $100,000 mv property, he ain't a gonna get it because taxpayers would be screaming bloody murder if their dollars were misspent that way.  Furthermore, if you are familiar with case law, gov't can not take property under eminent domain to give/sell/clear the way for a new private owner just because the new private owner could generate a higher tax revenue on that property.  Gov't can only take property under eminent domain when the taking serves a public purpose.  That, however, does not preclude gov't from negotiating with property owners to purchase their property for a purpose such as the new Cowboys Football Stadium.  You can't force, but money talks and BS walks.

[Nonprofit]

Quote

eloisel  Posted Yesterday, 06:42 PM
Government can not take property without compensating the owner. While the seller would like a higher price than market value of the property, gov't is purchasing that property with taxpayer dollars.

Quote

Gov't can only take property under eminent domain when the taking serves a public purpose. That, however, does not preclude gov't from negotiating with property owners to purchase their property for a purpose such as the new Cowboys Football Stadium. You can't force, but money talks and BS walks.

I couldn't agree more with you on this issue.  But in some cases the land owner may become land locked.   I have a buddy just over the border living in a very nice area but happens to be in the same area Chicago wants to build their 3rd airport.  Only in the last several years, they have actually been buying some of the land within the footprint of the airport plans.  Some people were willing to sell off their property to the airport folks.  But my buddy has had his house on the market for years.  No one will buy it because of its location and the airport folks won't buy it yet because its market value is too high. So he is stuck in that strange place which he calls land locked.  Poor guy and its all because they "might someday" build an airport which they have been trying to build for over 20 years now.  

Its a political nightmare for the folks living in that area.  This has flipped flopped from the right to the left many times with different deals that have been made over the years.  He wishes that they would just buy it or bury it.

RuReddy

[eloisel]

It is interesting that the market value on his home is still too high when he lives in a area that has no market.  There may be other factors involved, such as litigation over other parcels of land, that is stopping the project from moving forward.  Maybe things will start happening for him when the Kelo case ruling comes down.

Mostly I see gov't takings in situations such as road expansion or right of way and easements for utilities and drainage.  I know of one property two streets from me that was taken when that major thoroughfare was widened.  I can understand why the owner did not want to sell.  He and his family had lived in that property for more than 50 years.  His wife was elderly and bedridden and their elderly daughter also lived with them and required in-home medical care.  The project of widening the road was put off for several years until the wife had passed and then the man was not only paid the market value - not the appraised value which was much lower - as well as given a quite generous payment for relocating including a temporary home rental for nearly half a year and moving costs.  Those of us in the older houses two streets over wish they'd come make us that offer - we'd all take it!!  As much as I love my old neighborhood full of trees, I think I'd enjoy living in a newer house with fewer problems.