Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Viagragate ? [eminent domain]


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Viagragate ? [eminent domain] Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Viagragate ? [eminent domain] - 12/28/2009 9:31:00 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		They make viagra, thus the title.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html

I caught wind of this in the Dec. 7/14 issue of AFP and of course they have their own perspective on it. In this case I agree with them. The AFP is one of those papers that have been able to say I told you so more times than any other. Some people think it is written by a bunch of crackpots, but it is not. Some readers though.....

There are a few tasty little items in the AFP about this. The Wall Street Journal called the Kelo decision "one of the worst in recent years". Now this is not a crowd of ditch diggers, so I sort of wonder just what else they might be talking about. The Washington Examiner reported that the city had sold Pfizer a 26 acre plot for ten bucks, with tax incentives, and state as well as local government garnered up $26 million for cleanup, something that would probably be of use to such a facility no ?

The SNAFU continues. One of the suits over at Pfizer, David Burnett flat out told the Hartford Courant that Pfizer wants a nice place to operate. We don't want to be surrounded by tenements.

For whatever reason, Pfizer won. There is empty land where there were houses. Now Pfizer is completely pulling out and taking some jobs with it. It's like they're pissed off. But this is probably business as usual. Pfizer has the bigger stick in this case. It seems they have decided to give it a swing. With the demolished properties, it is about $450,000 in property taxes no longer coming in. That town is not that big. By US census numbers it's close to two bucks a head. Not alot right there but it adds up, but what about the people who thought there were going to be jobs there ?

Some probably stayed when they should've gone. Even worse, some may have moved there hoping for employment, burnt up their resources to get there. In the beginning some may have made investments that turned sour because of this. People rarely realize the ramifications of these actions, prefering to focus on other matters for whatever reason. But this comes down to property, and that's where the fuck it STOPS. Either they STOP or I STOP. There is no third option.

I'll spare you most of the AFP's slant on this, which I find quite level actually, except for this and that. The title of the article is "How a Rich Drug Company Took Down A City", and the words of Washington's Institute For Justice's Scott Bullock is reported to have said "Governments should not get involved in speculative and risky real estate ventures that include massive risk. That's the last thing taxpayers should be on the hook for".

Indeed. In the end guess who paid for it all. Whether you used or bought Pfizer products or paid taxes, you paid. You paid for this shit which accomplished nothing. Oh wait some lawyers needed an addition to their house for their ivory backscratcher collection. Don't it just make you so proud to pay for all this entertainment ?

Laugh all you want, but it really is not a laughing matter. You argue all day long about money or water or gold or silver or anything is worth something or not with the fiat currency and the fractional banking and all that. And I agree. But there seems to be a new development. Enough money can buy even that which is NOT for sale. Can anyone even fathom the implications of that ?

Now this article (the AFP, not the link, I can't do that) lived on my kitchen table and it gets read. Discussing the matter I questioned Pfizer's motives in even persuing this. I think this is a valid question. Look, you go anywhere in this country and try to build any entity that makes jobs for people, they will literally kiss your ass. Stake me on this, and I'll give back the money with a bit of vig. I mean it, the mayor of a city, no problem. You want a governor that takes a little more. My friend asserted that the actions by Pfizer were punitive in nature. At the very least that would be hard to argue against.

Well apparently Pfizer had the governor in their pocket, but something must have gone wrong. Originally John Rowland was all buddy buddy with Pfizer, what happened is anyone's guess, but he resigned as governor amidst a bunch of scandal about seven months before the final supreme court decision. Surely most are catching a whiff of rat by now.

I thought this post was done, but this brings up that, as usual. Somebody picks who to support and turn into a viable candidate set from which we can choose one. One puppet. On what do they base their decisions ? Well if I were a person of that level of influence I would make sure all my people had some skeletons in their closet. That is my wrench.

So maybe it could be put that Rowland pissed them off and then somone opened the closet door. Business as usual and we pay for all this shit. Welcome to the land of opportunity.

T
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Viagragate ? [eminent domain] - 12/28/2009 9:55:53 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline 		Dude, you're years too late. I was ranting about this Supreme Court decision when it was made. Kelo v. the City of New London was an atrocity and, amazingly enough, one in which very few people seemed to care even though it could potentially directly affect anyone.

Having the government seize people's homes so they can bulldoze them down so that a large corporation can build a parking lot and surround their building with grass & trees is exactly what the Fifth Amendment was written to prevent.

The "excuse" for this, that Pfizer can put the land to "better use" than the homeowners could is facile hogwash. A case could be made that any piece of property anywhere in the world can be put to better use. That excuse would allow a government to seize anything.

Fortunately, something like 40+ states have since passed laws restricting the use and power of "eminent domain" and increasing property owner's rights but it's sad and pathetic that the Supreme Court - supposedly the last line of support for the rights of the citizen - was more interested in providing Pfizer with some land for their corporate complex than it was over allowing people to live in their homes.

I still sit there sometimes shaking my head at how little people seemed to care about this.

< Message edited by InvisibleBlack -- 12/28/2009 10:28:43 PM >

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Viagragate ? [eminent domain] - 12/28/2009 10:24:09 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I live not too far from Merck.   They are in bed with both the grocery chain and the medical center.  You may recall I can be vocal on a post.  Well- I questioned the system here.    

The reply?   In short- back off of our drug turf.'

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Viagragate ? [eminent domain] - 12/28/2009 10:41:47 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"any piece of property anywhere in the world can be put to better use"

Picked up on that didya.

We had a case in Lakewood Ohio that was slightly similar. In this particular case I think the media actually did good. They got the mayor on TV who was behind the abolishment of some older, yet very nice homes. The reasoning was more taxpayers per square foot. The city declared the area blighted based on numbers, that the dwelling did not have multiple baths and all kinds of things. The newsman asked the mayor if her house had all the requirements to not be blighted by these standards and it comes out that it does not. She pursed her lips in a way I hadn't seem in years. Kinda went into the no comment mode, which actually probably means get out of here so I can take my pill.

The misuse of eminent domain was my intended focus here.

Not to mention that the suits at Pfizer who got cocky with this situation squandered money, and I hope that at the very least the stockholders hold them accountable to whatever extent they can.

T

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Viagragate ? [eminent domain] - 12/28/2009 10:43:33 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		eminent domain was used to confiscate the nations silver in 1934.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Viagragate ? [eminent domain] Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.047