- 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
Spinoff: Wall vs Private Property Rights
Posted on 2/27/18 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 3:59 pm
Just thought of this while reading another thread. Are most ok with ranchers and other property owners having to forfeit their land, ranches, and homes for the sake of the wall?
I only ask because I hadn't realized how much of the border was privately owned.
I only ask because I hadn't realized how much of the border was privately owned.
18
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:01 pm to Usafgiles
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:02 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
dont' agree, but I did crackup at that kid. Never gets old.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:05 pm to Usafgiles
Yeah...I am sanguine about it. But, wanted to post the gif.
Tp be fair...I have been to the border in a couple of locations. It ain't taking any great value in land in any of the places I have been.
I suspect that most would be thrilled to get ANYTHING in value for the strip that would be taken.
"Fair compensation" is likely a warm beer and a free "boot shining" per 1000 lf.
This post was edited on 2/27/18 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:09 pm to Usafgiles
Do you even eminent domain brah? Every major piece of infrastructure has to invoke it. Anyone effected will be compensated, should not be that expensive because that is some of the shitiest land on the continent
This post was edited on 2/27/18 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:13 pm to narddogg81
I know there is a legal basis for it. That doesn't mean I approve of it. Some of that "shitty" land would cut through peoples homes along the rio grande. Meaning they would be forced to move.
Clearly you have never lost any property to eminent domain. Fair value is usually shite, and putting the price on a family home is difficult sometimes.
Clearly you have never lost any property to eminent domain. Fair value is usually shite, and putting the price on a family home is difficult sometimes.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:14 pm to Usafgiles
quote:
Some of that "shitty" land would cut through peoples homes along the rio grande. Meaning they would be forced to move.
you're saying people have houses, literally crossing the border?
bullshite.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:16 pm to Usafgiles
quote:
Just thought of this while reading another thread. Are most ok with ranchers and other property owners having to forfeit their land, ranches, and homes for the sake of the wall?
I only ask because I hadn't realized how much of the border was privately owned.
Honest question for those who seem against this simply for the sake of being against something. What is the difference when DOTD wants to put a bridge/interstate through your backyard and they come buy you out?
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:17 pm to CptBengal
well, along the rio grande you would have to build the wall inside of the actual border and it would cut through peoples homes. Look at a map. Also there are people (not along the river) that span across the border, mostly ranchers.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:20 pm to Usafgiles
quote:
well, along the rio grande you would have to build the wall inside of the actual border and it would cut through peoples homes. Look at a map. Also there are people (not along the river) that span across the border, mostly ranchers.
Pay back for the wolves and pumas they decimated.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:21 pm to narddogg81
There were no eminent domain cases prior to 1879.
LINK
Not even for military forts, land was normally donated.
Supreme court rule several times it was unconstitutional. After all, Bill of rights grants rights it doesn't give the gment authority
LINK
Not even for military forts, land was normally donated.
Supreme court rule several times it was unconstitutional. After all, Bill of rights grants rights it doesn't give the gment authority
This post was edited on 2/27/18 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:22 pm to Usafgiles
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:24 pm to CptBengal
quote:
you're saying people have houses, literally crossing the border? bullshite.
He’s attempting to create an emotional response that we’re literally ripping people from their homes for mean old trump to make his wall.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:25 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
Honest question for those who seem against this simply for the sake of being against something. What is the difference when DOTD wants to put a bridge/interstate through your backyard and they come buy you out?
We lost some land in southern GA for a pipeline years ago. We were "paid" about 75% of what it was worth. Obviously I have a salty spot when it comes to eminent domain. It's bullshite. They could have went around our property line as to not cut it in half, but that would have cost them too much money.
So they paid for the part they "used" which split our property in half and killed the value of the ranch.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:25 pm to Usafgiles
I don't like it, but eminent domain wins.
I feel bad for those losing their land because the wall won't work. What will work is strict enforcement of laws and the creation of new laws that punishes those who knowingly hire illegals. The wall will be a huge waste of money.
I feel bad for those losing their land because the wall won't work. What will work is strict enforcement of laws and the creation of new laws that punishes those who knowingly hire illegals. The wall will be a huge waste of money.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:26 pm to CptBengal
quote:
you're saying people have houses, literally crossing the border?
Well you would have to take a large enough right of way for construction, maintenance, and patrol. So some people would have to move I think.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:27 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
He’s attempting to create an emotional response that we’re literally ripping people from their homes for mean old trump to make his wall.
It's more just adding it to the equation. I personally think the money is better spent on enforcement without a wall. This would be effective, and not take people's land.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:28 pm to DelU249
Be careful what you give up. You may like Trump but what about the next guy and the next guy and the next guy. That wall may be used to keep us in one day
Posted on 2/27/18 at 4:30 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
That wall may be used to keep us in one day
And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house
"Hey! What gives you the right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, man, you're some kinda sinner"
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News