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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (180233)	1/18/2006 2:59:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One problem with this example Sylvester.. The local voters apparently overwhelmingly approved of the deal. Local voters overwhelmingly approved the deal, so maybe we shouldn't get so exercised by star-struck local officials giving $200 million to rich baseball owners. But the most unseemly part of the deal was that Mr. Bush and the Rangers' owners conspired with city officials to seize private And this apparently happened PRIOR to the Supreme Court ruling, so it appears to have met the scrutiny of local laws and ordinances (or someone could have sued). So I don't see were anyone was wronged by arbitrary local government coming in and having the right seize property without holding elections, or being accountable to the system in some way. In other words, DUE PROCESS was exercized before the property was taken (and compensation provided). But it was YOUR beloved SC's (the ones who voted to continue the 2000 recount) who voted to grant municipalities the right to seize land without being accountable to special votes or committees. And that's the travesty of it.. The values you hold dear, where the government is your mother, your family, and of course, your father, your Big Brother.... Well "Big Brother" got the power to take your property without your consent so he could sell it to the neighbor next door. Hawk