Having heard some of the things said by the Right and the Left, what
impresses me is that both are against this expansion of Iminent Domain.

The Right sees it as Big Government taking over the lives of
individual citizens, and the Left sees it as souless corperations
taking over the lives of individual citizens. I myself think that
both Left and Right are correct on this issue.

So if Conservatives, Liberals, etc. are against this, why isn't there
a law banning it? The SCOTUS decision is about the laws that are
there already. Where are the bills on the floor of the House and
Senate?

And, to bring it back on topic, what sort of eminent domain (or
something like it) is likely to exist on a habitat? Will it have to
exist at all, or will the habitat fail without it?

> Having heard some of the things said by the Right and the Left, what
> impresses me is that both are against this expansion of Iminent Domain.
>
> The Right sees it as Big Government taking over the lives of
> individual citizens, and the Left sees it as souless corperations
> taking over the lives of individual citizens. I myself think that
> both Left and Right are correct on this issue.

There is a scene from a movie - whose title I forget - a band of
Legionnaires are in the desert, a million Arabs come over the horizon on
horseback in martial array. The OIC turns to the political guy and says
in a wry tone: "Congratulations. You have managed to unite the Arabs -
against us."

The State needs to be allowed to conduct it's business. But it's power
must be held in check to avoid trampling the citizenry it's chartered to
protect.

>
> So if Conservatives, Liberals, etc. are against this, why isn't there
> a law banning it? The SCOTUS decision is about the laws that are
> there already. Where are the bills on the floor of the House and
> Senate?

Eminent Domain is (as was pointed out up thread) is a legitimate tool
for the State. The classic example is a water tower. You must put
water towers on the highest elevation - this serves the community. But
the highest elevations tend to be the nicest places to put your house.
The State uses domain to pay fair market value for land you plonk the
water tower on.

To my mind it's a local issue. The Federal government should not get
involved. Let the local communities work stuff like this out for
themselves.

>
> And, to bring it back on topic, what sort of eminent domain (or
> something like it) is likely to exist on a habitat? Will it have to
> exist at all, or will the habitat fail without it?

I suspect yes but this is one of those deals where common law is going
to have to mutate to handle local conditions. Domain might be built
into the assumption of a habitat's code to the point where it just
'happens' without people paying any special attention.

Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport

brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967

Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks

My father worked for the Arabian American Oil Company
for 24 years, from 1947 to 1972. Aramco built numerous
towns(habitats), took care of all infrastructure and
the workers rented housing and used the entertainment
facilities, all of which belonged to the corporation,
who's employees decided what and where to build. Kinda
circular, but it worked and eminent domain whas not an
issue. I expect the first habitats will logically be
built to service some corporate need. So, be an owner
and a worker in the corp.

Gary 7

> > Having heard some of the things said by the Right
> and the Left, what
> > impresses me is that both are against this
> expansion of Iminent Domain.
> >
> > The Right sees it as Big Government taking over
> the lives of
> > individual citizens, and the Left sees it as
> souless corperations
> > taking over the lives of individual citizens. I
> myself think that
> > both Left and Right are correct on this issue.
>
> There is a scene from a movie - whose title I forget
> - a band of
> Legionnaires are in the desert, a million Arabs come
> over the horizon on
> horseback in martial array. The OIC turns to the
> political guy and says
> in a wry tone: "Congratulations. You have managed
> to unite the Arabs -
> against us."
>
> The State needs to be allowed to conduct it's
> business. But it's power
> must be held in check to avoid trampling the
> citizenry it's chartered to
> protect.
>
> > So if Conservatives, Liberals, etc. are against
> this, why isn't there
> > a law banning it? The SCOTUS decision is about
> the laws that are
> > there already. Where are the bills on the floor
> of the House and
> > Senate?
>
> Eminent Domain is (as was pointed out up thread) is
> a legitimate tool
> for the State. The classic example is a water
> tower. You must put
> water towers on the highest elevation - this serves
> the community. But
> the highest elevations tend to be the nicest places
> to put your house.
> The State uses domain to pay fair market value for
> land you plonk the
> water tower on.
>
> To my mind it's a local issue. The Federal
> government should not get
> involved. Let the local communities work stuff like
> this out for
> themselves.
>
> > And, to bring it back on topic, what sort of
> eminent domain (or
> > something like it) is likely to exist on a
> habitat? Will it have to
> > exist at all, or will the habitat fail without it?
>
> I suspect yes but this is one of those deals where
> common law is going
> to have to mutate to handle local conditions.
> Domain might be built
> into the assumption of a habitat's code to the point
> where it just
> 'happens' without people paying any special
> attention.
>
> --
> Brian Dunbar
> System Administrator
> Liftport
>
> brian.dunbar@...
> aim: bdunbar1967
>
> Remember.
> But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also
> drive a rivet.
> ~Lileks
>

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Congress has been addressing this.......where have you been???

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/bdquery

Listing of 19 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
1 . Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states `nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation';
(Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.RES.340.EH]
2 . Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies... (Introduced in House)[H.RES.340.IH]
3 . Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3083.IH]
4 . Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3087.IH]
5 . Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)[S.1313.IS]
6 . Eminent Domain Relief Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.2980.IH]
7 . To provide for acquisition of subsurface mineral rights to land owned by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and land held in trust for the Tribe, and for other purposes. (Introduced in House)[H.R.631.IH]
8 . Pascua Yaqui Mineral Rights Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)[S.1291.IS]
9 . Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.1713.IH]
10 . Interstate Transmission Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.1481.IH]
11 . Josephine Butler United States Health Service Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.3000.IH]
12 . Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)[H.R.1640.IH]
13 . Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)[S.726.IS]
14 . Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)[H.R.6.IH]
15 . Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.6.EH]
16 . Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[H.R.6.PCS]
17 . MORE Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.6.IS]
18 . Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.10.PCS]
19 . Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)[H.R.6.EAS]