Property Rights

[Racoon]

Bush is doing something I agree with for a change!

The fact that they were allowing/going to allow private property to be siezed, yet compensated for, under the premise of "Economic Growth" seemed very wrong!

Here is the latest:

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Rest of Article:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...060623-10.html

Any opinions on Rights of Property owners??

[Zythryn]

Nice thought, however, I don't see that this will help with the current issues as it only has domain over the federal government taking property.

Also with this exception:

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:
.
.
.
c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

Which seems to say that the private property can be seized if it is transferred to any nongovernmental entity that makes the property available for use by the general public as a right.

Does this mean a hotel with a pool open to the public? Or any store which allows people to browse? Seems like a major loophole in the making.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. I would like it even more if Bush would announce it and voice his encouragement that states, counties and cities follow suit.

I understand why the government at times finds it necessary to take someone's property. However, I don't think any level of government should be able to take property, then transfer that property to a private, for-profit company.

The rules for figuring out what 'just compensation' is also needs some work. Some people, from what I have heard do get what they think their home is worth. I have heard of others that got virtually nothing.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Nice thought, however, I don't see that this will help with the current issues as it only has domain over the federal government taking property.

Also with this exception:

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:
.
.
.
c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

Which seems to say that the private property can be seized if it is transferred to any nongovernmental entity that makes the property available for use by the general public as a right.

Does this mean a hotel with a pool open to the public? Or any store which allows people to browse? Seems like a major loophole in the making.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. I would like it even more if Bush would announce it and voice his encouragement that states, counties and cities follow suit.

I understand why the government at times finds it necessary to take someone's property. However, I don't think any level of government should be able to take property, then transfer that property to a private, for-profit company.

The rules for figuring out what 'just compensation' is also needs some work. Some people, from what I have heard do get what they think their home is worth. I have heard of others that got virtually nothing.

I agree. Roads, bridges, schools, parks, and other government uses are allowed. Giving someone's property to another private party is wrong!