Wednesday, January 16, 2013

give him the mayors house

The Supreme Court has handed Riviera Beach Florida officials their asses. The City, as part of an effort to "improve " the marina seized a house boat belonging to Fane Lozman. he sued the City for return of his property, and in hte heat of it all, the city destroyed his house boat. Now the City must pay.
I am of the opinion that municipalities should not have rights beyond those of any other corrupt corporation. They should not be able to pass laws, or implement eminent domain. I don't know all of the story, I am sure there is much not reported in the press. Given that The dumbass latina was in the minority, I'm guessing the SCOTUS made the right choice.
Now its back to the lower courts where the city will again try to screw Mr Lozman. Lets make it simple shall we? Lets just give Mr Lozman the keys to the mayors house and every thing in it except his wife. For the mayor, they should construct an eight by eight shack on a corner of the property and make him Mr Lozman's personal bitch. Make him mow the lawn, trim the shrubs, clean the windows etc. Everything a two bit illegal would do for a living. That would send a clear mesage to municipalities accross the country to watch their asses.

Update. I want to make clear that I am not opposed to applications of emminent domain for bonifide government needs. Roads and military bases are clear cut axamples of times where it might be necessary to use it. Some more examples might be rail roads and pipelines. In those cases though, the government should retain title to the property, and not pass it to the rail road or pipe line. In all cases, true value should be paid.
It should never be for malls or museums, not even police or fire stations. There is never a need to place them in a specific spot that I have seen. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
In all cases, eminent domain should be a lease of the property, not a sale. that means that teh moment government need is done, the property reverts to the original owner.
Legitimate government need only, and I want to be clear, ever event where a property was taken for a mall or event center, the property should be handed back to the poroerty owners free and clear.

2 comments:

Gregory said...

I have to differ with you a little bit. In Montana this city I lived in had a hell of a traffic mess. The city had built a 4 lane road to relieve this but the road had to cross a river...Three of those damned things in this town. The property owners that the road had to cross were holding out for years for a highly exaggerated land price. The city would only pay currant going-prices for the river-front property so the owners kept holding out. This went on for several years. Finally, the city and county did condemn the property and paid the market rate for the land and went ahead and built the road and bridge crossing the river. This road sees over 10,000 cars a day. The people needed it. No reason to rape the people paying the taxes out of greed. So I say this needed to be done.

JeremyR said...

Greg, it sounds like a worth while project. In my opionion though, it should be a state decision to take the properties. If a city believes a property needs taken for a project like a road, that is one thing. Taking a house boat is quite another.