Politics for Morons – Thread Moron Political Annex Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Politics for Morons – Thread Moron Political Annex

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tom C who wrote (227)	6/25/2005 3:32:10 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) of 326

More eminent domain stuff you might find interesting: Message 21450123 And this: BERMAN v. PARKER 348 U.S. 26, Case Number: 22. Decided: 10/19/1954. United States Supreme Court Cite as: 1954 US, 348 U.S. 26, U.S. Supreme Court, BERMAN v. PARKER, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) 348 U.S. 26 BERMAN ET AL., EXECUTORS, v. PARKER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 22. Argued October 19, 1954. Decided November 22, 1954. The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes... propertyrightsresearch.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next