Source Site


I don't see how this is even constitutionally right, basically anyone with the money to do it can come in take your home/property say they are using to economically advance the area surroundings and compensate you what they feel is a fair price for your property leaving you basically out in the street with no roof overhead.

To me sounds like they are just making it better for the corporate world to overtake things and make more masses of money for thier own beneficial gain and put more people out that can't afford to stand/fend for theirselves beyond providing for their family.

just my 2 cents don't think it is fair to the general public in the US that this is right.

 

 

 

Reply

We have had a compulsary purchase scheme in Britain for years. The Government can forcibly buy your land or building for the current market price, often to build roads or extend car parks etc. It isn't implemented often, only when people must be moved, when they are generally offered help in finding a new property, and given over the market price for their land.

Reply

Yes but can you really put a price on memories, heritage, family heirlooms as per se the house is an heirloom passed through generations of the family or something to that effect.

Market Price is substandard value then and it should be for the land and home combined unless they are buying me a home / giving me a home of equal or greater value with the money for my land which the house is contained on. And then in my eyes it still isn't feasable.

If they were to try to do that to me here where I live in a house built by my grandfather in the family 3 generations now counting me and has been updated to meet current coding requirements for building standards and such otherwise untouched...they can offer me no amount of money that would be feasable or equal to the value of that in my opinion.

Reply

Thats exactly how it works in the United States as well.

Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't government supposed to protect the people from stuff exactly like this? It seems like the government is instead abusing those it is supposed to be protecting.

Reply

It is a simple matter of urban planning. Lets say a town with very few employment options suddenly finds GM knocking at thier door wanting to build a plant, the city finds a suitable place, 99% of home owners in the area are fine with it and sell their homes, one hold out remains and refuses to sell, but his home is dead centre in the proposed development, are you then stating that this one persons will over rides the will of the rest of the town. I thought it was a democracy? The plant would bring in thousands of jobs, create quite the economic boom for the town, and one person could screw it up.

You see the argument can swing both ways. As long as it is used with caution and control it is a good idea, too heavily handed and suddenly it IS a serious problem.

Reply

Usually however you don't get all the home owners either agreeing on something like that or consenting so wholeheartedly to something. I do agree that it can go both ways though, good point.

 

 

 

Reply

i say it totally blows, it will be a matter of time when it will be nothing but malls and gas stations, but thinking about though with homes that are completely useless and or dangerous to live should be destroyed and maybe that could be benefit the area. but if people are taken homes just for greed well they should be tarred and feather and dragon to the streets.

Reply

Advocating torture by dragons now Mike? (your last sentence)

Seriously though, you just gave me a great idea to start a post on dragons and what the Bible says about them. Thanks for the idea

Reply

This is a bad law. Lets say that they want to build a skyscraper in your city. They come to your house and say we are taking this because we can here is a pennie. There is nothing that you can do about it. Looks like it is time for another online petition .

Reply