Okay it has taken me a while to find some supporting articles:
QUOTE
QUOTE
From CNN/Money:
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
[...]
"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.
Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."
While companies like Wal-Mart have been using eminent domain to seize private land in the past, this is a big step in the wrong direction, and means that nobody is safe from Wal-Mart anymore.
If your town wants a Wal-Mart and your house is in the way, you better start looking for a new house or better start working to keep Wal-Mart out.
http://blog.wakeupwa..._home_isnt.htmlObviously other companies are doing it.
My thoughts on Customer choice:
If you fatten up a pig it becomes big.
As above if you fatten up a market so much it wants so much more space.
So that depends on the amount of customers feeding it and the type of food it is being fed.
The definition of
seize according to a dictionary:
(1) to take by force; to capture.
(2) to take legal possession of someone or something.
(3) to take or grab suddenly, eagerly or forcibly.Now I couldn't find anything before about the government buying houses from landowners.
QUOTE
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
http://www.foxnews.c...,160479,00.htmlJust compensation? What kind of compensation? House market value or in what ratio to that?
In other words it sounds like the government is saying that they are more equal than you for serving the "mass majority" "so we don't need to take it through the proper channels on asking first if we can purcahse that land from the owners."
We're too busy in profiteering out of "public use" so instead by
force we'll
suddenly capture your land
eagerly and add you to some victims list for compensation.
Correct me if you think I got it wrong.
Also on my findings I found an interesting article about China and the land laws there which I might point out later in Own land bad Rent land good.
This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 March 2007 - 02:24 PM