What is Digg?82 Comments
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+34I am drawn between my hatred of Wal-Mart's use of Chinese slave labor killing the American economy and my hate for this absurd bench legislation, I want Wal-Mart to fight it I guess.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Eminent Domain is not 'gay'. Without it, you wouldn't have railways, highways, power line corridors and other public utilities. The big problem with eminent domain today is that it has been extended to cover economic development. In other words, government can seize land from one landowner and sell it another, all in the name of economic development. That was never the purpose of eminent domain. It's one thing to have your property taken in the name of a highway, but it is another to have to taken only to be sold to a developer.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I fWal-Mart hadn't had countless town councils use Eminent Domain to take peoples' private property in the past, I'd agree. But it's nice to finally see this thing work against the bastards. Maybe if they get shafted on this end, they'll thing twice about doing it to honest land owners. Nah, probably not. Rat Bastards. I'll never shop at a Wal-Mart again as long as I live.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13If you honestly think digg is restricted to tech news anymore, then you're out of your mind. It'd be nice if there were a more organized catagory system (and I'm sure it's coming), but digg as a niche "tech news" source is already an archaic concept.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Jeez. Eminent Domain was to build ROADS and SCHOOLS and POST OFFICES.
The article says that they want to build a _different type_ of shopping center there. Although the residents say that they don't want a walmart there, it's still walmart's property. Taking it like this is Theft/Communism. If they don't want a walmart there, then the people in that community should hold a protest. And then later, those in favor of the WalMart should hold a supportive rally. Walmart should make the choice to sell or build and then face the crowd that they pissed off. - duality, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16The submitter gave Digg an ambiguous headline. When I read it from the cloud, I thought someone was going to seize land and then give it to Wal-Mart. Here's what people could think when they read this from Digg's cloud.
Accurate:
"Walmart to have [a piece of its] land seized by eminent domain."
Inaccurate:
"Wal-Mart to have land [that has been] seized by eminent domain."
Just for that, I'm tempted to mark this story as inaccurate, in the hopes that dusingaz will resubmit it with a clearer title. - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Whether or not you believe in the New Urbanism concept as a zoning tool - you must admit that Wal-Mart by its very nature doesn't fit into a New Urbanism development as it cannot be a multi-use structure and has limited ability to use mass transportation. Both of those are fundamental parts of anything zoned for New Urbanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_urbanism - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8This definitely sounds dirty. The city council probably has connections with the other developer. The article doesn't make it clear, but it sounds like the other guys were trying to play it safe. As if the plan was to clear all the hurdles out of the way before buying the property, and they got caught snoozing so their buddies in the council are trying to strong arm Walmart. Does anyone from that area have any insight?
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7hmmm
- Wal-Mart buys the land, submits its plan for city approval
- City rejects the plan on the basis that Wal-mart's plan violates the city's code for the land that was set before Wal-mart bought it.
- So Wal-mart puts in a revised plan to try to meet the city code
- Yet the city instead wants to take the land, and a council person who wants to do this admits that she never read Wal-mart's revised plan to see if meets the code.
whether you love Wal-mart or hate Wal-mart, they seem to be making their decision based on a bias against the company. - musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What Eminent Domain does is in the Constitution up to the point that it says in the Fifth Amendment that land can be used for PUBLIC USE. However, courts have taken quite a bit of liberty defining "Public Use" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of improving the community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#United_States - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Eminent Domain has been redefined by the Supreme Court (incorrectly, imho) as anything with "public benefit," up to and including a larger tax base. So, if you own property somewhere and your town thinks they can generate more tax revenue by taking your land and giving it to Wal-Mart, they can do that. It's downright sad and SHOULD be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there aren't enough politicians on either side of the aisle with the balls to actually represent the people, so we're pretty much screwed.
And a corporation that pursues profit to the obvious detrement of the surrounding customer base is, I'm afraid, evil. Evil isn't an emotion (not sure where you got that). It's a judgement call based on an individual or group's actions. Wal-Mart fits the billing, imho. Now, corporations are often attributed characteristics that are not apt, but this ain't one of them. - Enitime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I do believe that was sarcasm aimed at the we-blame-Bush-for-everything crowd.
Like there's not enough crap he really IS responsible for. - a_greer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If Walmart has to give up the land, they should sneak onto the property in the middle of the night and place a bunch of endangered speicies, then call the EPA...what a monkey-wrench that would be...
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7the did something similar in Lawrence, KS. they wanted land in a residentially zone part of town and it wasn't approved so they just filed a law suit that has been costing the city large dollars and eventually wore them down by redefining the question from should we let walmart tear out and take over the people live in the area... to... they can keep this legal stuff forever and its costing the city too much to fight it... its been going on for like 5 years or something. if my memory isn't failing me it was $10,000 a month.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yep, its over, and a good thing too.
Otherwise people would never hear about some of the other cool and great things that have appeared here recently but which aren't 'all tech related'! - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Eminent domain is not a legislation from the bench. It is an allowable act in the U.S. Constitution. There was a recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject where I actually would have agreed with the dissent written by William Rehnquist. However, eminent domain is a tool that government must sometimes take. Are they always right in doing so, no.
- thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nah, to have means possesion exists, not receiving. If the title was Wal-Mart to get land seized by eminent domain, I'd agree, since get means receiving. "Wal-Mart to have land that has been seized by eminent domain." isn't english, since you are mixing future and past tense. The combination of have seized is your full verb here. You could move the words around to Wal-Mart's land to be seized by eminent domain to add clarity, but the meaning is the same as original poster's.
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5My hypocrisy knows no bounds when I root for the city on this one.
- dbsanfte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Headline: "Walmart to have land siezed by eminent domain"
Article: "The Hercules City Council will consider whether to use eminent domain"
Do you see anything wrong? I do. Hyperbolizing your headline to get diggs is really, really sad. - uncleFester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Eminent Domain has been redefined by the Supreme Court (incorrectly, imho) as anything with "public benefit," up to and including a larger tax base."
... which (imho) is then in contradiction to the 5th amendment of deprivation of public property unless for 'public use,' as the use is more intended for private or governmental gain, NOT ultimate public gain. whether the public benefits from that gain seems ancillary. To me, it tries to define an intangible or non-defined benefit: the 'improvement' of an area.
A new road can have a tangible benefit. A dam has a tangible benefit. New utility paths have a tangible benefit. Hell, even parks and nature areas have a tangible benefit (preservation, though that starts becoming a stretch). "Economic improvement," to me, seems too flimsy a justification: how does one guarantee benefit? Who ultimately receives the benefit? Is it concentrated to one person/company/group or many/all?
(fwiw, i'm from a farm background and my family (specifically my father) has been through 3 eminent domain events: one when a dam was built forcing him & his parents to move their house, one with a road enlarged to a 4-lane highway, ad a third when Ohio attempted to win the Superconducting SuperCollider. the last one was a failed attempt; had it succeeded it would have claimed over 2/3 of our family farm. so, i get a little touchy with eminent domain claims.. :).
-'fester - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I have a friend that is a huge proponent of new urbanism and lives in a neighborhood that adheres to its strictures. I don't see how it's in any way beneficial or relevant in today's society, but I don't begrudge people their choice to abide in said neighborhoods. All I know is that a house under construction in his neighborhood burned to the ground and threatened nearby homes when the fire department had difficulty getting through to the house and that crime is higher in more densely populated areas, so it doesn't seem that smart to me. But, whatever.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2walmart is hardly a minority.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6New Urbansim is a farce. What some urban planners want to do is to instantly create 'towns' and 'villages' in urban areas that mimic older, so-called successful and desirable, areas of cities. The problem is that you can't create that kind of feel in a matter of months or years. Most desirable areas of cities took years, if not decades to become desirable. More importantly, many, if not most of these desirable areas happened without any planning in the first place. Since land along major transit routes was more expensive, it only made sense that developers built larger-scale projects (apartments with commercials uses at ground level) along these routes in order to recoup their investment.
- Enitime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6It's not really Walmart's fault here.
They just go to the city council and say: "we'd -like- to build in your fair city... but there's no room anywhere."
Then the city planners bend over backward (or rather, they bend some poor people forward) to free up some land.
I'd blame them more than Walmart. - chocobomog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, the same thing happened in Oakland a few months ago: Wal-Mart wanted to move in, the city said no, they battled, Wal-Mart won, 40,000 Oakland citizens applied for the 800 jobs at Wal-Mart, and now it is as busy and congested as the Martinez one. It sounds to me like the city officials don't like Wal-Mart while the general citizens have a different opinion.
Hercules also suffers because Pinole is just 2 miles down the highway from them. Pinole has a Target, K-Mart, Best Buy, a large mall, In and Out Burger, and many other large stores. Commuters stop there all the time, and yet very few stop in Hercules. They may need this to get move commuters to purchase items and pay Hercules taxes. - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You must not have read the article carefully. It says:
"Wal-Mart bought the property overlooking central Hercules in November after another developer received city approvals for a neighborhood shopping center."
"In February, city planners recommended denying Wal-Mart's proposal for a big-box store on its property"
"On March 31, however, Wal-Mart submitted a new application that it said substantially conforms to city requirements." - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you should read... this is unique because the city wants to take land from Wal-Mart, not for Wal-Mart
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+19Even if it is Wal-mart, eminent domain is still gay.
- TacitusBen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Karma for Wal*Mart.
- tskrilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I love how everyone rips on Walmart. If Walmart went away another company would just take its place. People like their cheap *****. I live in a small town and the grocery store's prices are outrageous. So I go to Walmart because I'm cheap.
- kupo19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your title is misleading. Here's the real headline: "City TO CONSIDER taking land from Wal-Mart
Prime bay property COULD BE seized by eminent domain" - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>We'll if Wal-Mart ended up buying nobody should have shopped at it. Then they'd of spent far more money
>and would have to of closed anyways.
>Except this is the OPPOSITE of the article, not "something similar" Did you REA the article?
yes i did. it was about walmart believing they have are in charge of city planning... not the cities. if any town in america had a chance of that happening it would be lawrence. 15 years ago they built a mall over looking the kaw river. it was opposed by most because it would hurt the down town which is still alive and well. the mall is now a telemarketing center or something.
but in this case... what will happen is that this upper middle class neighborhood will loose its current property values... and people will live by a walmart.
i am not against walmart. things change. i am against the idea that walmart decides where walmart builds. and i am against walmart for going to rural towns building a walmart which does collapse the local down town and then moves out because they can make more money elsewhere... leaving the town with nothing... - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a pretty old nail. Eminent Domain became law in the United States in 1791. It's in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Actually, the concept predates the Constitution, but the Fifth Amendment makes sure that if the government takes your land, you will get paid for it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I bet Walmart could make better use out of the personal homes of all these ghey city councilmembers.
This is unbelievable. If Walmart can meet the building code and show proof about the tax revenue the crooked politicians have no right to stop them.
This is why government needs to stay out of our lives. It's BS how politicians abuse their elected powers to force their agenda on all of us.
Let people vote with their dollars. - buckykatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1edit: nevermind, bf01 beat me to it.
- Squinty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Digg for proper English!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1samdu..please provide ONE case, let alone countless numbers of cases that you cited. So, just one case where someone lost their home to eminent domain so that a Walmart could be put up.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for adding a local perspective, but you're upsetting the elitists.
"They don't have to be totally upscale, but we need some better things," said opponent Tom Petersen, a psychologist who lives in an area of million-dollar plus homes called Victoria by the Bay. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Right. Thats why we have a government, for the public good.
- kankerfist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Eminent Domain is the last nail in traditional America's coffin. We are now what we once fled from. Sad thing is that a modern day Columbus could only hope to find unclaimed land on another planet, and I probably will not live long enough to join or become him.
- chocobomog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I live very close to Hercules and drive through it on my way to work. Personally, I don't see what the problem is with having Wal-Mart there and from what I can tell it won't be any different than what is already there. There is a giant Home Depot and a Big Lots next to the area Wal-Mart wants to build on. And that's it for the town, Hercules basically spans one exit off the highway and so far the only places to go are the two mentioned. Although admittedly, I haven't explored much past the roads next to the highway, there may be some gems further in the town.
There is a Wal-mart 10 miles away in Martinez and it is absolutely packed at all times. It is the only one I know of for 40 miles in the east bay(unless there are some further north, but that requires tolls and lots of driving). It is not uncommon to have to wait in line for 30+ minutes to check out. If opening up another one means there will be less congestion in the Martinez Wal-Mart, and more business for Hercules I don't see what the problem is. Maybe I would actually stop in Hercules if there was a Wal-mart there. - YoungBrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The full quote is:
Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb Voting on What to Have for Lunch.
Liberty is a Well-Armed Lamb Contesting the Vote - Benjamin Franklin - PrayerNeeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Doggpound "Anything that screws walmart is a good thing."
Wow. Anything. Let's send robbers and rapists and, um, tanks and helicopeters and, um, a hurricane or two. Just to screw over Wal-Mart. They're all good, right? Just because they screw over walmart.
@ JimXugle
" If they don't want a walmart there, then the people in that community should hold a protest. ..."
The people DID hold a protest, in the form of elected representatives who "recommended denying Wal-Mart's proposal for a big-box store on its property," Looks like the representatives represented the people.
@Drizzit
"We'll if Wal-Mart ended up buying nobody should have shopped at it. Then they'd of spent far more money and would have to of closed anyways."
That's not how it works. Even in the most anti-Wal mart places, peope will be drawn to walmart shopping because of variety, prices, and employment. Mom & Pop shops may only lose 5% of their business at first, but the psychological impact of a drop in customer loyalty combined with that may seriously injure a mom & pop shop. Also, small towns are usually begging for employers of any type. The early adopters are drawn, and others follow, in pairs, in families, and in neighborhoods.
@josto
"Wal mart is not evil. Corporations, hilariously enough, do not have emotions."
Evil is not an emotion. It is a depravation of truth, justice, and the other virtues. Wal mart is a corporation, the officers of which have repeately chosen to deprive workers of decent salary and medical / health care benefits, among other things. Consumers are treated like cattle in the stores. Though I do not condemn profit, I do condemn their chosen means of profit. - BT-Wang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HEY! this isn't walmart's fault! it's the government's fault. last I knew corporations weren't the government, they do have most of the rights of people... but that's a whole different matter.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5/em is confused. Please rephrase your post into something resembling proper, coherent English.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Too bad that infamous eminant domain case wasn't before the supreme court today. There's no way, with the new Bush appointees, that this abuse of eminant domain would be legal.
- DPyro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ah yes, finally a taste of their own medicine. The thief will eventually be thieved himself.
- Maverick83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My point is, the government can even take something away from a corporation if it's in the name of the "public good".
- BumbleBee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Walmarts competitors prices wouldn't be nearly as high if it weren't for Walmart. As soon as Walmart moved to my town prices went up everywhere else as they knew they couldn't compete. Walmart is spreading like a plague. People in car sales, banking, and even doctors aren't safe from the Walmart plague. This year Walmart is experimenting in healthcare by opening 20 clinics in their stores across America. Once Walmart drives all it's competitors out of business it should be fairly easy for our government to control what we buy. Maybe that's why our government cooperates so well with Walmart. Communist Bastards...
Btw if you don't mind Walmart owning your home, be sure to check out their home mortgage rates. More info can be found at your hometown Walmart Supercenter! - Ekstra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Its satisfying to see eminent domain finally used against WalMart as WalMart has convinced so many town councils to use it in its favor.
That said, I'm against the shocking increase in eminent domain being used by town politicians (not trustworthy enough imo) to force people and businesses to sell their land out from under them. Eminent domain used to be used as a tool when a few people would hold up road or railroad construction needed by tens of thousands. These days, local politicians are using it to boot people or businesses off their property even for such simple reasons as WalMart will bring in more property taxes.
In general, people (myself included) believe that possession is 9/10ths of the law. Due to the shameful exploitation of eminent domain, a town can strip you of property that has been in your family for five generations just because they want a few more tax dollars.
Politicians at any level are not to be trusted. Demand that eminent domain be put on a ballot and voted down for anything not related to town infrastructure or throughways! -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is