Not surprisingly, IP you once again demonstrate a middle school level of political understanding.
I don't currently own my residence, but that doesn't mean anyone can barge in whenever they want to, where did you get that idea?
Do you even understand the difference between property and possessions? All your shit-your jet ski, porn collection, high school sports trophies are possessions. "Property" only comes into play when talking about land/businesses. When the founding fathers restricted the franchise to white male PROPERTY owners they meant people who owned land/businesses-not all your stuff. So when people say they think a finite natural resource like land shouldn't be the property of any individual they're not saying anyone can come over and help themselves to your stuff. Did that distinction penetrate your thick skull?
It's not eminent domain. The trailer park residents aren't the owners, but I have to agree that their lives will go on and I'm sure they'll find another place to park their castles on wheels. Two months free rent may even cover the moving costs, although I doubt it. The property owner has every right in this case.
Get yourself on over to Sark's house and take anything you want.
He doesn't believe in property rights.
In his demented world, "ownership" of property is not cool. I'm sure he leads by example and rejects ownership of any and all property, so, if you help yourself to some of his stuff, he won't mind, because it's not really his anyway. (Please, someone take his computer and internet gateway right away!)
Sark is a genius!
By eliminating the concept of "ownership", he has eliminated the crime of theft.
How can anyone be charged with theft when there is no ownership. Need a tank full of gas? Just fill up and drive off, no one actually owns that gas. Hungry? Just fill up a shopping cart with steak and beer and push it on over to your house and throw a party, because no one really owns that food! Need shelter? Just kick down the door of a house you like and move in! Those folks living there have no more right to that home than you do!
What a great idea for organizing a society! I'm surprised the founding fathers hadn't considered it when drafting the Constitution. What could possibly go wrong?
Thanks for the belly laughs, Sarky!
Geez, everyone has it wrong, but you've got it figured out! How is it that you're writing for a free weekly & not onto running some big company, solving all their problems! Small minded nit-wit!
Government is a business. I worked for a national newspaper for 22 years & managed 22 budgets. If I managed the way democrats do, I would have been out of a job in my 1st 30 days!'
Granted there are some crazed republicans & generally I don't think much of the folks in our government on either side, but I'm concerned about what will be left for my children & grandchildren.
Has anyone heard of eminent domain? I grew up in the northeast during the 50s & 60's and our family's 2-family home along with dozens of our neighbors had to sell in order for I-95 & I-91 to be built. And you know, all of the families' lives went on!
And I rent and I have a Business in North Charleston
I don't know if you've ever been back to that trailer park but it is a total shit hole there's been ODs and crime in the trailer park for years I live in wondo woods and rezoning this area couldn't come fast enough if anything this Trailerpark is hurting the homeowners in this neighborhood by bringing home values down
It was a much better place back when it still had the swimming pool.
Property rights are as "real" as any other socially constructed idea. Like human rights. To argue that they're 'real' in an objective sense is absurdity. If you want to argue that it's an advantageous social construct that's another thing.
You might not "believe" in property rights but that's doesn't make them not real.
They have owned this property since at least 1982 and have rented a prime piece of frontage real estate out as a trailer park for over twenty years (at least) instead of seeking more lucrative uses for it. They have, by default, been helping the poor with low cost housing the whole time.
"to bash the buyer or seller is idiotic" - that sums up this commentary very well.
"It is absolutely the property owners right to do with the land what he pleases. No one would disagree with that."
Those of us who don't believe in property rights would.
Is this seriously an issue? If you rent, you always run the risk of having your home go away. I'm a renter, I realize the risk and while it would be a pain to move, that's my choice. Imagine if we started telling land owners what they can do with their property (which we already do, btw) and who they can sell to? Ugh, what a miserable excuse for an issue. I'm sorry for the people involved, but to bash the buyer or seller is idiotic. The people who live there should have known what they were signing up for.
It is absolutely the property owners right to do with the land what he pleases. No one would disagree with that. That being said if any one single person on this planet had an ounce more compassion and empathy the world would be a much better place. We live in a world where we wage war on poor people. People who are just living within their meager means.
But yeah it's still the property owners prerogative.
Explain to me again how the property owner should be ashamed?
cid95 your second comment describes Utopia for the columnist and many of the City Paper's readership. It would be so much better if you were just told what to do with everything and told how to think, let someone else control every other aspect of your life.
Something that was not mentioned in the commentary above is that the owner of the park also offered to let the tenants take the trailers that can be moved free of charge. I have not seen that the property owner was willing to pay the moving costs although that is possible.
Those darn "property owners", who do they think they are!?
What's next? We'll have so-called "business owners" deciding what products and services they want to offer, and even when to open or close their business. Unbelievable, but it's true!
Okay, one more reference article. This one from that commie Paul Krugman yesterday. He provides a chart from the Bank of England showing the relationship between debt levels and interest rates in England over the last 300 years. It basically shows that everything conservative economists say about debt and the need for austerity is wrong. Please notice that for much of the 300 years, the English debt-to-GDP ratio was greater than 100% and at times was greater than 200% (right vertical axis).
This thread is about dead but I just wanted to share this report from the St. Louis Fed that proves that the Community Reinvestment Act along with Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the financial crisis. You can either believe people like artrogue and Michelle Bachmann about the cause of the recession or you can believe the data.
"Using a regression discontinuity approach, we find no evidence that the affordable
housing goals of the CRA or of the GSEs affected any of these outcome measures. This finding is robust to the inclusion of alternative controls, to the sample of only full documentation loans, and to different bandwidths for the regression discontinuity specification. While it is unquestionable that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac held substantial amounts of subprime mortgages, and that their holdings of these securities played a significant role in their demise, the evidence in this paper refutes the claim that the affordable housing mandates were responsible for the subprime crisis."
As a final thought,
Chicken Littles on the right who predict the destruction of the economy due to the size of the national debt are never willing to increase income taxes from their current historic lows in order to save the country. Just as Chicken Littles on the left who predict the destruction of the environment due to global warming are never willing to combat carbon emissions with nuclear power in order to save the planet. My reaction to both views is the same, if you are not willing to adjust your ideology to combat the disaster you are predicting, then you don't actually believe the sky is falling.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper