Sound familiar?

[LAK]

Sound familiar? I wonder of it is Walmart

Funny though, in a country with a brutally murderous regime still at the helm, the peasants are revolting over such things in contrast to the slaves on this side of the world. There's a reason for that.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-11-10/47989.html

Thousands Riot Over China Land Seizure
Reuters Nov 10, 2006

HONG KONG—Thousands of Chinese villagers clashed with riot police after barricading officials and foreign businessmen in a warehouse they said has been built on illegally seized land, a newspaper reported on Friday.

The clash erupted on Wednesday near Shunde, in the southern province of Guangdong, during the opening of the warehouse, which villagers said had been built on land grabbed by officials and sold off to developers, Hong Kong's Apple Daily said.

The villagers only began to disperse the next morning when police used tear gas.

China has struggled to smother rising flare-ups of social unrest in recent years, sparked by issues ranging from corruption, forced layoffs, land grabs without compensation, to disparities in wealth between the rich coastal belt and the impoverished hinterland.

Up to 10,000 blockaded the warehouse entrance in the village of Sanzhou, trapping 300 assembled dignitaries, including Guangdong officials and Hong Kong and foreign businessmen inside, the newspaper said.

Around 1,000 police and riot police arrived to defuse the standoff, but the villagers stood their ground, refusing to leave unless the corrupt officials were investigated, the paper said.

It was only when police began firing tear gas the following morning that the crowds dispersed, according to witnesses quoted by the paper.

Photographs showed riot police standing on a wide highway, clasping transparent riot shields.

Ten people were arrested, the newspaper said.

Villagers interviewed by the paper said of some 9,000 acres (3,650 hectares) of land in the village of Sanzhou, half had been sold off illegally by officials last year.

In January, China's Ministry of Public Security said there had been 87,000 "public order disturbances, obstructions of justice, gathering of mobs and stirring up of trouble" last year, a 6.6 per cent increase from 2004.

Copyright 2000 - 2006 Epoch Times International

------------------------------------

Prince Phillip: "The peasants are revolting!!"

Queen 'Liz: "I knooow dear ... just try not to look at them"

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[danny]

Yeah,  they could build a Walmart and only carry US made goods.

[Tallpine]

the peasants have always been revolting,
but now they are rebelling.

 

[Antibubba]

Yeah,  they could build a Walmart and only carry US made goods.

Why would Walmart build a store the size of a 2-car garage?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't get it.  What's the connection to Walmart?

[The Rabbi]

Sound familiar? I wonder of it is Walmart

Funny though, in a country with a brutally murderous regime still at the helm, the peasants are revolting over such things in contrast to the slaves on this side of the world. There's a reason for that.

Might have something to do with the fact that they have no recourse, no vote, no lawsuits, no right of petition.  All things we have here.
Ya think??

[LAK]

The RabbiMight have something to do with the fact that they have no recourse, no vote, no lawsuits, no right of petition.  All things we have here.
Ya think??
On the contrary, for many people in this country - there is no recourse because of the front money often required. Or it is recourse amounting to far too little too late. Having a right of petition does not equte to a affirmative right to a required and just response.

Actually, I think that the reaction in China is indicative that far more ordinary chinese people know what the true nature of the status quo really is. Here at home on the other hand, people still seem to be under the impression that there is some magical difference in the human nature of a corrupted ruling oligarchy, perhaps because of our geographical or other superficial differences. The Chinese in general I think have gotten over that one by now, and have had enough.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Art Eatman]

LAK, when have you ever heaard of somebody being forced out by the use of eminent domain, but not being paid?

In China, from the article, the people who get land taken away are not losing it to what we call eminent domain.  It's purely a loss to superior force, without being paid.

In Texas (I don't know about other states), if you don't like the amount of the offer, you can take it to a jury trial.  The history of such jury decisions is that you typically get an above-market $$$ judgement.  Per federal law, there are no taxes on any profit.

Art

[The Rabbi]

Art,
You obviously don't get it.  The Chinese understand they live under a brutal dictatorship.  Americans don't understand that we live under a brutal dictatorship.  Elections?  Fraudulant. Votes?  Fixed.  Power is vested in narrow corporate interests and corporatism (whatever that is).  Witness oil prices.  Don't you see how they have been manipulated to insure a Republican win?  No, huh.  Then you must be one of the sheeple.  No, nothing to see here folks.  Keep moving.  We lack the conviction to get up on the rooftops and start shooting.  I'm with LAK.  When he gets up on his roof top to start shooting I'll be there cheering him on.

[Modifiedbrowning]

the peasants have always been revolting,

You said it, they stink on ice.

[LAK]

Art,

We do have recourses in law, on paper etc, however many of the cases I am familiar with have not resulted in anything like a fair deal for the owners of the property. And aside from the actual settlements issue, there is the issue in this country of the use of eminent domain for corporations to build anything some local gov crony will rubberstamp as being "in the public interest".

This is an outrage. Building a major interstate highway, needed military base etc is one thing - privately owned shopping malls, offices etc are another altogether.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Art Eatman]

Hey, I'm fully in accord with the LAK view of "Kelo". 

But one reason I voted for Gov. Blow-Dry's re-election in Texas was that he called the special session of the legislature which passed the changes to our eminent domain law to have it "Public Use" instead of "Public Benefit".

Texas ain't a sheeple-pasture, apparently, compared to other states.

Rabbi interjected oil prices into this thread.  Okay, go read up on Nigeria before alleging corruption.  Further suggested reading is the discussion of the myriad factors of the Oil Bidness in the recent archives of "Whiskey & Gunpowder".  The free email subscription is worth the reading.   http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com

Art

[The Rabbi]

Art,
I was kidding.

The disposition of Kelo has been just the way it is supposed to be.  Many states have enacted statutes forbidding what they did.  That is the correct way to deal with that issue, through the political process.

[LAK]

To crystallize the issue of compensation, send a public official to assess "fair market value" on a property condemned for "public use" - and the same day send in the local property tax assessor. Then compare the "fair market value" numbers assigned.

And "fair market value" is a token amount considering the personal costs to many people. People who worked their whole lives, carefully chose their location etc, and built or bought their home intending to live out their days. Perhaps near kin or located for some other special reason. People who work at a particular location etc. Having to suddenly pack up and "find somewhere else", the costs of moving and searching, broker fees, lawyers perhaps, and a plethora of other nickel and dime expenses. What the property could be expected to sell for does not really amount to the actual costs people faced with such things have to bear.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Art Eatman]

That's why I like the Texas system.  Those issues can be brought into court as evidence of the total cost of the forced sale.  So far, the juries tend to favor the sellers.  In some cases, the future value of nearby land has been taken into account, the "What it?" factor.

Probably the biggest emotional hits accumulate when a major reservoir project is the cause of the use of eminent domain.  That can easily be a hundred-thousand acres of taking, of many farms and ranches that have been in families for generations.

One of the saddest letters I ever read was from an elderly ranch-lady in west-central Texas.  The family graveyard was near the house.  Her grandfather was there, killed by Comanches in around 1850.  She'd heard that the ranch was in an area where a dam/lake project was to be built and was protesting.  Yeah, it got built, but long after she was gone...

The big problem is that when many tens of thousands of people want water, and there's no other alternative, somebody loses out.

ARt

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

To crystallize the issue of compensation, send a public official to assess "fair market value" on a property condemned for "public use" - and the same day send in the local property tax assessor. Then compare the "fair market value" numbers assigned.

And "fair market value" is a token amount considering the personal costs to many people. People who worked their whole lives, carefully chose their location etc, and built or bought their home intending to live out their days. Perhaps near kin or located for some other special reason. People who work at a particular location etc. Having to suddenly pack up and "find somewhere else", the costs of moving and searching, broker fees, lawyers perhaps, and a plethora of other nickel and dime expenses. What the property could be expected to sell for does not really amount to the actual costs people faced with such things have to bear.

I used to work for an MAI appraiser who frequently worked on eminent domain takings.  I can tell you that, at least around here, your perception of eminent domain compensation is flat out wrong. 

95% of takings are for road widening and improvement projects, the construction costs of which exceed the real estate acquisition costs by at least two orders of magnitude.  The government bodies involved instruct the appraisers (who are highly qualified private sector consultants, NOT "public officials") to err in favor of overcompensating the property owners.  This is because when property owners object to the awards they're offered they tend to take the matter to court.  This is bad for the government, because it adds costly delays to the construction projects and adds huge costs in legal bills.  It's bad for appraisers because it hurts their professional reputations, which are critically important to them if they wish to remain successful consultants.  It is best for all concerned to overvalue the properties somewhat, than to try to hit the exact value dead on and risk occasionally undervaluing a parcel.  The extra cost is a drop in the bucket comparatively, and it simply isn't economical or sensible to take the risk.

If you sent in a property tax assessor and an eminent domain appraiser to value the same property on the same day, you'll almost always find that the tax assessor has undervalued the property and the appraiser has overvalued the property.

In circumstances where families or businesses are forced to relocate, the state often offers relocation assistance - money and logistical help to allow the owner to relocate without any out of pocket expenses. 

Most informed real estate buyers understand that eminent domain takings are a fact of life, and those who "carefully choose" their new location take potential future eminent domain work into account as part of their decision making.  Again, the vast majority of eminent domain takings are for highway projects, and highway projects tend to be planned out some 20 years in advance.  These plans are public knowledge, and savvy buyers know to look into it before signing a deed.

There are a lot of good people out there whose jobs are to make eminent domain as painless for the property owners as possible.  Sure, there are some scumbags out there too (we're talking about the government, after all, and there will always be some corruption and graft involved in government projects).  But there are an awful lot of people who go to great pains to make sure property owners aren't injured in the process.  It is neither true now fair to say that all (or even most) eminent domain work is a violation of the property owners' rights.

[LAK]

Maybe "around [there]". But many of the cases I have seen, based on what has been presented have not been so rosey.

[280plus]

Art,
I was kidding

geez I'm glad you added that! 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Here in one of the bastion's of leftist thinking (Oregon), we've managed to pass a couple of laws that make surprisingly good sense.  Both of these were brought about via the initiative process, where citizens wrote a law, circulated a petition, and got enough signatures to put the petition on the ballot.

The first of these was Measure 37.  It is a property owner's rights law.  Basically what it does is say that if Bob owns a piece of property, and while he owns that piece of property the government decides to change the zoning of a section of property in a way that devalues his property (say, turning it from commercial to "greenspace" or something like that) then .gov has two options.  They can either not change his particular property's zoning, or they can pay him the difference in value.  Now, this is a law that has been passed a couple of times before, but the courts always managed to find some hole in it.  But the people behind this law just kept going at it again, and this time, the Oregon Supreme Court OVERRULED a judge that said it wasn't legal to affirm that it is a legal law...   

The second law was just recently passed.  Basically it goes along with all the states that have enacted similar laws to block the Kelo decision.   It "prohibits public body from condemning certain private real property if it intends to convey all or part to a private party, with exceptions."  The exceptions are surprisingly common sense. 

[Devonai]

A "yes" vote on Question One on the NH ballot last year was to strengthen the state laws regarding eminent domain in favor of the private land owner.  It passed in a landslide.

Unlike Massachusetts, we expect the legislature to actually make it law soon.