Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (243282)	7/25/2005 7:53:56 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572503

The problem is they are taking away from somebody and giving it to somebody else. They've set a dangerous precedent that can be used to take away anyone's property and give it to a buyer. If I refuse to sell my land to someone that wants to build a mall and make money, that's his tough luck. He can build his mall somewhere else.

To: SilentZ who wrote (243282)	7/25/2005 11:42:23 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572503

I personally like the idea in theory, but not so much in the way it was ruled... The particular case was in New London, CT, an area that used to thrive but is now down the tubes, and one that desperately needs the type of project which the city was aiming to bring in. However, the Court ruled that the homeowners needed to be paid "fair value." Well, what's fair value? Who determines that? Some real guidelines and an independent panel need to be in place here. Determining fair value in a small city like New London is fairly easy to do. There are certified appraisers, professionally trained, who can determine fair value in a matter of weeks. The issue over eminent domain is not whether people get fair value for their property........they usually do.......but rather being forced to sell when they don't want to. ted