?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Wtf

In the U.S., it appears that they can seize your house if they want to.

I've never heard of this happening in Canada... does this happen here too?

Comments

( 21 comments — Leave a comment )
f_o_n_y
Jun. 23rd, 2005 04:49 pm (UTC)
haha. i think that's what they did with the best buy headquarters near my old house. or some kinda corporate pressure.

our legal system rules. dirty money wins!
bertine
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:06 pm (UTC)
they did that with the land around 55 too where the light rail is now. the seized those houses, tore them down and let them sit for 30 years before they did something.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC)
That's just so wrong :( Those poor people, they must have been devastated.
bertine
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:41 pm (UTC)
it was a huge scandal and now they have built up a whole bunch of house right back in that area because they didn't go through with their plans.

anyways, our government has always been able to take land for public works, this ruling pretty much just affirmed that a city, state, etc could define themselves what is for the public good.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:47 pm (UTC)
So what do they do for the people who lost their homes?
bertine
Jun. 23rd, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
pay them "fair market value".

my grandfather worked for the state of minnesota department of transportation and he would talk about how hard it was to balance adding new roads against removing people from their houses.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 08:51 pm (UTC)
Ugh! It should have to be way above fair market value :/

I mean, think what happens to the market value when you hear that a big company is trying to buy everyone out to build a factory?
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC)
Wow. Just scary.
geordieland
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:05 pm (UTC)
I haven't heard of a house being siezed but I've heard of people who've lost cars and boats if it's believed they were purchased with profits made from crime.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:38 pm (UTC)
I've heard of that too. The only thing I can think of that is somewhat related, is when they wanted to build a dam, and the resulting flood was going to put a few farmsteads underwater. I think the farmers fought it, but I don't think they ended up winning...
geordieland
Jun. 23rd, 2005 08:04 pm (UTC)
Actually. I just read the story and I see that they aren't talking about seizing your home because you've comitted a crime, they's saying BIG BUSINESS CAN SEIZE YOUR HOME IF THEY WANT TO BUILD ON THE LAND!

Those assholes!

So if some retired couple has their nice little retirement home in the country that they've worked on their whole lives, that their kids grew up on and call home, that has the little trout pond, lots ot trees and bunnies and birds, WAL-MART CAN COME ALONG AND TAKE IT FROM THEM!

America is wrong in so many ways.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 08:49 pm (UTC)
Agreed!
egbert
Jun. 23rd, 2005 05:47 pm (UTC)
This seems to me to be an abuse of what the law was set up for. Builing highways and schools to me are viable reasons. A pharmecutical company that improves the community only by "bringing in more taxes" is pushing to far, IMO.

With that logic, almost anybody could push for the same. That's bad.

This ruling is going to have a large influence here as well. A private corp is trying to build a toll road that would bypass Fort Collins, Denver and Colorado Springs. The main freeway (I-25) that goes through all these metro areas get extremely congested. So they want to build a toll that would bypass them all, particularly for truckers.

But they would need access to the land. And being a private entity, this had been difficult. This may clear the way for them. It really only affects farmers (not densly populated areas), but I can still understand their frustrations. Even with adequate compensation, it forces a change on their lives and livelyhood. To me, this is still a more valid reason than your story.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 07:46 pm (UTC)
I'm not really sure why the idea of new highways hasn't been an issue here... I think what happens here is that the land is rented by the farmers to the government, so it's a constant source of income... maybe that's why we never hear anything about it up here.
dokusei
Jun. 23rd, 2005 08:26 pm (UTC)
This woman I know had that happen a year after she bought her new home. They didn't give her any compensation whatsoever; it was incredibly disgusting.

But there is, for whatever excuse, no reason to force people to leave their homes. Schools, new companies, whatever . . . Those people have just as much right to that land.

Sigh, more reasons that Nikki is living in the wrong country.
sharya
Jun. 23rd, 2005 08:50 pm (UTC)
Yeah it seems like they should be trying to look at different solutions for their traffic problems rather than taking away what people have bought and paid for :/
dokusei
Jun. 23rd, 2005 10:02 pm (UTC)
The thing is even the compensation doesn't pay enough. These people spent a lot of money on their house; it's a continuous cycle of putting money in. Just to get another school for kids (which, in this area, is beyond me as to why they keep building them when the number of children in the district is shrinking) or new routes of the road, they're giving them barely enough to go look for another house. They also have the added bonus of being able to rezone the area into "commercial development" before consulting the people who are living on that land. Meaning the house, that should be marked at $80,000 to $100,000 if it were on the market under normal circumstances, would be significantly cheaper. Wonderful ploy, right?

And even if -that- doesn't happen, the compensation still isn't enough. The housing market is already crap in this country, and people can't really afford a new house (or even an old house that is new to them). The economy isn't supporting it for anyone to logically own property. The houses that -are- affordable aren't in the areas anyone would honestly want to live. It's sad when the government's willing to do everything for businesses but nothing for people.

It kind of disgusts me that they're willing to do this, especially considering the housing market's not very good for anyone. "Pay a shit load of money for your crappy house! And let us take it away!" Er, that's being over-dramatic . . . but it may as well be the point now.
perviepom
Jun. 23rd, 2005 10:46 pm (UTC)
Surely they can do that in Canada, they can do it here, it's a compulsory purchase order.

However, this doesn't appear to be an issue in the public interest here, and it smells of big business getting their own way at all costs.
sharya
Jun. 29th, 2005 03:38 pm (UTC)
It smells very fishy indeed!
heidi_13
Jun. 30th, 2005 05:23 am (UTC)
heh. serves them right if they seize *my* house.
They can clean up after my kids for awhile. ;D
sharya
Jul. 7th, 2005 03:30 pm (UTC)
The horrors! :P
( 21 comments — Leave a comment )

Copyright 2003-2017 by Shar

Latest Month

January 2015
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow