- 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: Legal eagles out there...I understand there are a few landowners in TX....
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:19 pm to Rohan Gravy
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:19 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
Depends on what it’s used for.
No. It doesn't.
And it's pathetic that you think that it does.
0
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:32 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Move your interstate around Zeke's family farm, you statist prick
That's someone's farm too, moron.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:33 pm to zeebo
quote:
For the public good it’s cool.
Statist
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:37 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
That's someone's farm too, moron.
Better hope they're interested in selling then.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:37 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:Perhaps they'd be willing to sell, dipshit
Move your interstate around Zeke's family farm, you statist prick
That's someone's farm too, moron.
If not, keep moving
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:41 pm to skinny domino
quote:
ep, most PT board patriots didn't like ED
Depends on what it’s for. Most of the discussion around ED usually centered on KELO, where the government forced the sale of a run-down neighborhood to give it to a private developer to build an office park. The reasons justified were “economic development”. So, let’s run down the ED “ok” reasons:
National defense
Transportation infrastructure (assuming it’s a worthwhile improvement and not just a giveaway to a casino)
To dam a river for hydroelectric power generation
Dredge waterways or build levees for flood protection
Economic development certainly is not a good enough reason.
All of this is a moot point because the federal government had already acquired a right of way to the border property decades ago, so no ED is necessary to build the wall.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 6:43 pm to kingbob
quote:This is bullshite, dude
All of this is a moot point because the federal government had already acquired a right of way to the border property decades ago,
No offense, but there are still court cases pending from ED condemnations from several years ago
And how do you think the federal government "acquired" that right of way, anyway?
This post was edited on 2/16/19 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 2/16/19 at 7:14 pm to JuiceTerry
And ED to build a border wall seems like a completely justified use of that power.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 7:16 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:One thing for sure, our President does not suffer from ED.
No offense, but there are still court cases pending from ED
Posted on 2/16/19 at 7:17 pm to zeebo
quote:Roads? Yes.
You should not seize private land for private development just to increase you tax revenues. For the public good it’s cool. We are not going to build an interstate because Zeke wants to keep the family farm?
Parks? Probably not. Buy it on the market.
Shopping mall? Definitely not.
Border Wall? NO. There is not a "need" for it. There are other options for securing the border.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 7:18 pm to kingbob
That's really not what I questioned, Robert
Posted on 2/16/19 at 7:20 pm to kingbob
quote:How many times must you people be told that the government DOES NOT own such an easement in Texas?
All of this is a moot point because the federal government had already acquired a right of way to the border property decades ago, so no ED is necessary to build the wall.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 7:57 pm to AggieHank86
True, they do not have a right of way along the Rio Grande, yet. I do, however, believe it is a worthwhile use of the power.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 8:49 pm to JuiceTerry
Pretty sure they got the right of way through ED. The right of way they still need in Texas will likely be accomplished the same way. Is there some kind of gotcha you’re trying to get here?
Posted on 2/16/19 at 9:49 pm to kingbob
No, brah
Just wondering about the widespread support for governmental land seizure all the sudden
I don't care for it when the reasons behind it are really dubious
Just wondering about the widespread support for governmental land seizure all the sudden
I don't care for it when the reasons behind it are really dubious
Posted on 2/16/19 at 9:53 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Don't be a Clown
TAKE A HARD LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Posted on 2/16/19 at 9:58 pm to Dry Prong Wildcat
Do the feds have easement rights along international borders?
If so, on what grounds will they sue?
If so, on what grounds will they sue?
Posted on 2/16/19 at 10:07 pm to JuiceTerry
Having an easement along an international border seems common sense. I don’t understand why they didn’t have one already so long as raparian owners were still permitted access to the Rio Grande’s water.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 10:17 pm to kingbob
quote:It still involves taking private property from US citizens
Having an easement along an international border seems common sense.
Posted on 2/16/19 at 10:26 pm to JuiceTerry
But a perfectly justified reason for doing so, and possibly the MOST justifiable reason possible.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News