|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Another example of left wing government|
Another example of left wing government
Posted - 10/24/2013 11:13:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
abusing its power to the detriment of a private citizen for no reason at all except to stroke the egos of the central planners.
Oh but maybe there IS another reason: Perhaps one or more of the central planners has/have a friend who's a developer and this friend has his eyes on that particular piece of land which, as the article points out, might become very valuable in the future. And maybe this/these central planner(s) has/have the opportunity to invest in this land (secretly through the developer, of course)...
President Ronald Reagan once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "(We're) from the government and (we're) here to help."
Could anyone possibly have more accurately and succinctly summed up a corrupt liberal/socialist government?
I know where there's another one.
Posted - 10/24/2013 11:21:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
If you actually read...
the source story, it's a much different story.
The City of Seattle is in the middle of a massive road project and the eminent domain issue is part of that project. Scores of parking spaces are being displaced and this lot is needed as part of the ongoing construction project -- not something to line the pockets of a developer.
But never let facts get in the way of a good, unfounded conspiracy theory, cruzo!
Posted - 10/24/2013 11:55:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
As always you have NO idea what you're talking about
Your entire raison d'etre is to disagree with me.
The site is CURRENTLY a parking lot. The city wants to wrongly acquire it by eminent domain to turn it into...a parking lot.
This piece of land may very well be this 103-year-old woman's principal source of income and/or the only asset she has to leave to her posterity.
You are just another in a long line of heartless left wingers who support socialistic central planning.
Posted - 10/24/2013 2:16:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
Did you read the actual article, cruzo...
Oh, of course not. What was I thinking.
The city is BUYING the lot to make it a city lot -- as part of a major road project.
No one is taking anything. But they are going to have to modify it to make it fit in with the road project. That means, they're going to have to buy it.
Posted - 10/24/2013 2:22:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
"as part of a major road project"
No, go back and read the facts again. The city wants to make it into a...whaddaya know?...parking lot AFTER the project is completed. That, of course, is when the land will have taken on tremendous added value...which could be coveted by developers who are friends of city officials...or even city officials themselves.
Posted - 10/24/2013 2:26:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
What part of...
"Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020." did you not understand, cruzo?
Read more: http://q13fox.com/2013/10/22/103-year-old-ordered-to-sell-parking-lot/#ixzz2if4JFzb0
For a "writer" you certainly ain't much of a reader, are you?
Posted - 10/24/2013 2:57:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost
when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct..."
This is a prime example of why I've got to watch you people like a hawk to prevent your lying by omitting small but salient facts.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY, ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE, THIS PARKING LOT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A PARKING LOT UNDER CITY OR OTHER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IF IT IS WRESTED AWAY FROM THE CURRENT LEGAL OWNER. And it is why the current owner will maintain this parcel as a parking lot. It is vitally important.
This is purely an exercise in the city, in its official arrogance, invoking its dubious "right" of eminent domain over privately owned property. This is a ploy that has been increasingly utilized by governments in contravention of Constitutional guarantee.
And don't give me any platitudes about "the greater good." That is a communist concept, to which our Constitutional guarantee is anathema.
Posted - 10/24/2013 3:03:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Poor, poor, cruzo...
just needs something to be outraged over.
Even when he's shown the move is part of a major road project and the city has a need to provide parking spaces for the taxpayers, he rants on and on about nothing.
Get over it, cruzo.
You should have researched the matter a little deeper before going off the deep end.
Posted - 10/24/2013 3:24:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
As always when I have him dominated by facts
he resorts to ad hominem and personal attacks. I don't have time for this.
Posted - 10/24/2013 3:34:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
What "facts," cruzo...
You can't even provide the "facts" behind your claim that the Texas GOP's Voter ID Law -- a pet project of Texas Republicans for 8 years -- is really a secret Democratic Party conspiracy.
What are the facts here, cruzo?
Seattle is building a major viaduct project.
It will eliminate city parking spaces.
The City offered to negotiate with the parking lot owner to buy the extra parking spaces it needs as part of this major road project.
The owner didn't want to negotiate.
The city exercised its right of eminent domain to buy the land.
Those are the facts.
Posted - 10/24/2013 5:19:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yeah, what ARE the facts?
etwinkie: "Seattle is building a major viaduct project"
That is NOT a fact. Seattle is tearing down a viaduct in order to dig a tunnel.
etwinkie: "The City offered to negotiate with the parking lot owner"
That is NOT a fact. There is no evidence the city offered to negotiate.
etwinkie: "The city exercised its right of eminent domain."
That is NOT a fact. There is a Constitutional guarantee AGAINST precisely the same action as that in which Seattle engaged. Sadly. liberal activist courts have been routinely ignoring this guarantee "for the greater good," which is a communist concept.
We need to return this country to Constitutional values and eliminate those who are threats to them. And we need to get intrusive governments off the backs of people.
Posted - 10/24/2013 6:30:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruiztwit.. just go back to the john birch society..
they'll probably pay attention to you..
nothing you post here is worth considering..because you're always wrong..
wrong on the facts.. wrong on the law..
just a loudmouthed idiot..
Posted - 10/24/2013 7:16:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
Socialist Parking Conspiracy!
This is clearly an Obama plot to force socialist parking and fluoridated water on the masses.
Ronald Reagan once said, "what does the astrologist say we should do about that mommy?" And, "Bonzo, no!" As well as "brought to you by Boraxo!"
Locals say black helicopters are fake moon landing Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who was schooled in a madras Benghazi!!
Posted - 10/25/2013 8:47:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
Cruzo is uninformed...
but that isn't stopping him.
He says the city refused to negotiate. Oops -- they DID.
Seems the millionaire owner of the parking lot refused to let the city lease the lot. And it was standing in the way of the highway project.
It was going to be a temporary lease -- but the millionaire's parking managers got greedy, wanted to profiteer off the situation, and refused to go along with the short-term lease. The city exercised it RIGHT of eminent domain -- and is moving to buy the lot for $7 million.
Poor little rich girl, only getting $7 million for a $7 million dollar piece of property that fits only 130 cars.
Without the lot, the construction will eliminate all city (cheap) parking in the area -- allowing the lot's managers to profiteer from artificially high rates. The city has a responsibility to taxpayers to maintain reasonable parking rates in the area.
But here's the other thing. If millionaire owner doesn't want to sell, she can still go with the lease -- and fire the greedy bastards running the lot that got her into this situation.
Posted - 10/25/2013 12:28:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
No, pal, YOU'RE the one who's uninformed
You didn't even read your own article. Seattle DID NOT try to negotiate with the owner...who is decidedly NOT a millionaire in the liquid assets sense (her parking lot has a potential value of about $7 million but that is potential ONLY, not cash on hand).
The city tried to lease the parking lot but the owner declined. Chances are Seattle offered a sum that was far less than the lot is generating in revenues. A business neighbor says her parking lot is "almost always full."
And YOUR article...the one you did not read...says the city wants to condemn the property in order to operate its own parking lot to generate revenue for the city. THAT IS DISTINCTLY COUNTER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
So everything you said is wrong.
Posted - 10/25/2013 1:39:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
Everything You Said is Wrong
Yeah! They NEVER negotiated. They "approached".
"When the city approached the Spokane resident about allowing it to lease space to help ease the parking crunch during construction of the Highway 99 tunnel and the seawall, she declined, city sources say."
Approaching is a classic socialist/communist move to establish parking rights in the name of the people. If you study Kenyan law, which cruiser has, you'll know they use this technique to fluoridate water and deny global cooling.
So cruiser, only LOOKS stupid saying they never negotiated because in America the word approach could be construed as an attempt to make an offer and negotiate.
Stalin is alive and well and circling cruiser's home in a black helicopter
Posted - 10/25/2013 1:49:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
Nope, you're wrong, cruzo...
but that's always the case, isn't it?
Yes, the city negotiated with the owner/property manager.
"Myrtle Woldson, 103, owns a long-term parking lot near the Seattle waterfront valued at $7 million. When the city approached the Spokane resident about allowing it to lease space to help ease the parking crunch during construction of the Highway 99 tunnel and the seawall, she declined, city sources say.."
Sure looks like a negotiation to me.
Furthermore, the city only wanted it temporarily. That's why they wanted to lease it. Once the project is over, they would end their lease and the owner could raise rates or develop it or whatever. But because she wanted to stand in the way of a road project -- or profiteer on the backs of Seattle taxpayers -- she forced the city's hands.
The Fifth Amendment allows for acts of eminent domain -- and it was the city's only other option.
The city will pay at least $7 million dollars for a parking lot. The woman, already a millionaire heiress, will not go hungry.
Posted - 10/25/2013 1:55:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
Offering Cash and Following the Constitution?
Thank God someone like brave cruiser can denounce this lawful ploy by Obama to use death panels to take this old woman's home and park armored cars purchased by the Department of Homeland Security.
Why use a "Constitutional" tactic? Do we trust these "founding fathers"? How many were born in the USA? ZERO! Where were they born? Kenya perhaps?!!
What are they up to here?
An attempt to fluoridate Puget Sound?!!!
Posted - 10/25/2013 2:15:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Sure looks like a negotiation to me"
Then you need a prescription for new glasses. The word approach is not...in any way, shape or form...a synonym for negotiate. In my thesaurus the closest in meaning are offer and proposal. NEITHER is a synonym for negotiate.
The city of Seattle made a lease offer which the owner rejected. As I speculatged earlier, the offer was probably far less than the property owner was receiving in revenues. To reject an inadequate offer is her right as the private owner of real property.
No amount of arm-waving, smoke and mirrors and left wing (socialist/communist?) whining will change that.
Oh, and to reiterate: EVERYTHING YOU SAID WAS WRONG.
Posted - 10/25/2013 3:43:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
"When the city approached the Spokane resident about allowing it to lease space to help ease the parking crunch during construction of the Highway 99 tunnel and the seawall, she declined, city sources say"
How does this translate into: The city offered her a fantastic deal but she laughed at them and instead drove her parking rates sky high to bilk the commuters.
The truth: Reading comprehension:
The city wants to lease the space and claims it "approached her" and she said no.
Did they offer her a six-figure deal?
Did they offer her a box of Mars bars and a goat?
We don't know. Did she counteroffer? It doesn't say. It says: She declined.
What financial offer did she decline? We don't know.
For all we know she could be a greedy millionaire. Or she could like parking lots. Or the city offered her a crap deal 70% lower than market value. Or the city wanted a 40-year lease. Or the city offered a fair lease at a reasonable rate for the length of time it takes to complete construction.
We don't know.
The whole thing is pretty stupid. It's a parking lot know that is used, according to a neighbor.
Isn't that what the city wants? So leave it alone.
Posted - 10/25/2013 4:05:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Both of you, please read the articles I linked to...
Local businesses have been asking the city to provide public parking.
Why? Because the construction project has eliminated all public parking in the area.
The city tried to accomodate by negotiating a long-term lease for the private parking lot.
The owner refused.
The city, under the law, was then allowed to use eminent domain, under the Fifth Amendment, to take the property for fair market value. The owner is now being offered $7 million based on the appraised value of the parking lot.
That is ALL perfectely legal.
However, the city is still willing to work out a long term lease -- based on the fair market value of the land.
But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, cruzo.
Keep on hating small business and standing up for a millionaire who wants to profiteer on the backs of small business and taxpayers.
Posted - 10/25/2013 5:15:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
"millionaire who wants to profiteer
on the backs of small business and taxpayers"
You radical left loons crap in your own sandbox with those kinds of hyperbolic, incendiary lies. Your credibility goes to ZERO when you pull that.
The rest of us understand...that's pure Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals. We just don't want to be associated...or even carry on a conversation...with the kind of people who resort to that.
Posted - 10/25/2013 6:04:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yes, Reagan said the most terrifying words are "We're from the government and we're here to help." Mostly because his idea was to take the government and use it to screw everyone over and redistribute wealth to the already wealthy. He knew what he was talking about!
Posted - 10/25/2013 6:11:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
Why? Because the construction project has eliminated all public parking in the area.
How is that the owner of the parking lot's problem?
And how does condemning her parking lot, which is functioning, legal?
Posted - 10/25/2013 8:19:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
beenthere, it's not the parking lot owner's problem at all...only to the extent that Seattle, which is a VERY left wing city...will probably initiate condemnation proceedings against her and cause her an enormous legal bill.
The real problem is etwinkie. Once he takes a particular tack he is loathe to jibe or abandon it altogether...even in the face of incontrovertible evidence My assessment is he has a severe ego problem.