- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House across from Walk On's in Zachary
Posted on 12/4/23 at 7:21 pm to fightin tigers
Posted on 12/4/23 at 7:21 pm to fightin tigers
I’d say it’s more valuable to him now that it’s in a commercial zone. Imminent Domain became bad when the SCOTUS allowed taking by private entities essentially because it was for the public good.
I’m not a fan of that for non public use. The government and others should pay what it’s worth or look elsewhere.
LINK
I’m not a fan of that for non public use. The government and others should pay what it’s worth or look elsewhere.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/4/23 at 10:32 pm
1
Posted on 12/4/23 at 7:29 pm to zippyputt
quote:
I’d say it’s more valuable to him now that it’s in a commercial zone
Not really. If all the commercially zoned areas in americana were absorbed and he was last one standing maybe, but there's ample commercial properties available right there that haven't moved.
The crack houses to his west are listed at $225K as commercial zoning. He made a major mistake not selling when offered way above market value.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 8:26 pm to Piebald Panther
I’d agree he probably made a mistake if they offered him the deal described above.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 8:35 pm to zippyputt
What mistake? He bought his house and doesn't want to leave or have it fricked with. Government sided with the business across the street to Imm Dom him and frick up his peace.
Like saying you fricked up by not taking money to let someone rail your wife. There is a value for being left the frick alone.
Like saying you fricked up by not taking money to let someone rail your wife. There is a value for being left the frick alone.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 9:21 pm to broadhead
quote:
Enquist offered him way over market price for the house and a free house in Americana but the owner didn't accept.
Always demand more than it’s worth. After all you are owed for the inconvenience and hell of leaving your home.
But $750k, if true, is kind of insane.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 9:24 pm to Quatrepot
quote:
Why didn’t they use eminent domain to get his house?
You can’t use that for a private for profit venture
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:27 pm to Finch
Yes you can if it benefits the “public good” in some way. That’s the whole point of the Kelo decision.
LINK /
quote:
one of the most controversial property rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for "public use," the Court ruled that the transfer of condemned land to private parties for "economic development" is permitted by the Constitution—even if the government cannot prove that the expected development will ever actually happen. Building on earlier decisions such as Berman v. Parker (1954), a closely divided 5-4 majority ruled that virtually any potential benefit to the public qualifies as a "public use."
LINK /
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:31 pm to fightin tigers
How’d that work out for him? 
He’s in his house and just doesn’t like the view and some roadwork. He made a mistake and played his cards wrong. He should have realized the cards were stacked against him and taken the deal. Sucks for him and I don’t agree with it, but he’s lucky they just didn’t take his land anyway and pay him basic money for it which they very well could have done.
He’s in his house and just doesn’t like the view and some roadwork. He made a mistake and played his cards wrong. He should have realized the cards were stacked against him and taken the deal. Sucks for him and I don’t agree with it, but he’s lucky they just didn’t take his land anyway and pay him basic money for it which they very well could have done. Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:31 pm to zippyputt
What was the public good?
It benefitted a private development.
Should be one of those cases Tulane takes up to actually benefit citizens and the statem
It benefitted a private development.
Should be one of those cases Tulane takes up to actually benefit citizens and the statem
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:32 pm to zippyputt
quote:
He made a mistake and played his cards wrong. He should have realized the cards were stacked against him and taken the deal.
Yep. People like you are allowing governmemt to run wild. Keep voting for it.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:39 pm to fightin tigers
STFU moron. It’s people like you who can’t comprehend basic ideas and concepts that are voting for stupid people. Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit with the comments you make.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:42 pm to zippyputt
Keep defending government stealing land for campaign donations.
This development managed to frick a landowner, keep two entrances to their property, and setup approaches to take other houses.
Suck that government dick zippy.
This development managed to frick a landowner, keep two entrances to their property, and setup approaches to take other houses.
Suck that government dick zippy.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:49 pm to fightin tigers
Hey dumb dumb, tell me where I said I supported it? I said 2x I didn’t agree with it. Again, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. I was explaining what the basic concepts of the law are. You seem to have fetishes about other acts!
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:58 pm to zippyputt
You are saying it benefitted the public good. It didn't.
Have to have a mouthfulla government cock to think it benefits the public to add a roundabout to a straight stretch of road.
Sad fricking stance
Like I said, I'll turn your wife's snatch into a commercial zone. More profit for you. What is the downside?
Have to have a mouthfulla government cock to think it benefits the public to add a roundabout to a straight stretch of road.
quote:
say it’s more valuable to him now that it’s in a commercial zone
Sad fricking stance
Like I said, I'll turn your wife's snatch into a commercial zone. More profit for you. What is the downside?
This post was edited on 12/4/23 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 12/4/23 at 11:01 pm to fightin tigers
I didn’t say it fetish boy, the US Supreme Court said it.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 11:04 pm to fightin tigers
Essentially yes!
Posted on 12/4/23 at 11:06 pm to zippyputt
quote:
Essentially yes!
So, no.
There was no public benefit.
Explain the public benefit without including the private development that donated the land.
Government strongarmed a landowner who couldn't afford counsel.
This post was edited on 12/4/23 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 12/4/23 at 11:07 pm to fightin tigers
If this was going to happen in some way with or without the owner getting paid, he should’ve swallowed his pride and taken the cash. Maybe even work a deal to help him get a new home on some new land that can alleviate this inconvenience.
Instead, dude is going to live the rest of his life in spite and negativity. If he was going to be fricked, should’ve gotten paid.
I’m not a fan of what the developer did nor do I think the government should even be involved like this, but why did he think he was going to win this fight?
Instead, dude is going to live the rest of his life in spite and negativity. If he was going to be fricked, should’ve gotten paid.
I’m not a fan of what the developer did nor do I think the government should even be involved like this, but why did he think he was going to win this fight?
Posted on 12/4/23 at 11:10 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
precedent /pres'i-d?nt/ noun An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances. A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts.
So based on precedent, they DID rule MANY times that taking for a public road is allowed no matter what. That’s exactly what was done here. The development could have worked with the road as it was.
The public benefit is whatever the local government decides it is. They decided that they needed to control traffic better to that area and added the roundabout. Period, end of story for that issue. They could take that guys house and build a Walgreens on his land if the municipality really wanted to under Kelo.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News