← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle

City forces out 2 downtown businesses

Thread ID: 18971 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2005-07-03

Wayback Archive

Gabrielle [OP]

2005-07-03 15:19 | User Profile

OAKLAND City forces out 2 downtown businesses Action follows high court ruling on eminent domain Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 2, 2005

Printable Version Email This Article

Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city's plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.

But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.

A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.

"I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here," said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. "The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It's not fair."

The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development. Last week's ruling expanded on earlier decisions that allowed agencies to take property only if it is considered "blighted" or run-down.

"The city thinks I cause 'economic blight' because I don't produce enough tax revenue,'' Revelli said. "We thought we'd win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance."

The two properties, which total 6,500 square feet, were being forced to move or sell because their businesses are on a larger section of land that is slated for the Uptown Project, a city-subsidized real estate development that is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums.

The project's wedge-shaped lot, just west of the 19th Street BART Station, includes several blocks roughly bounded by 20th Street, 17th Street, Telegraph Avenue and San Pablo Avenue.

Both Revelli Tire and Autohouse, owned and operated by Tony Fung, are on the northern edge of the project in the 400 block of 20th Street, which is also called Thomas L. Berkley Way.

The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 years. Before approving the Uptown Project last year, the city considered putting in a shopping mall, then an arena for the Golden State Warriors and later a ballpark for the Oakland Athletics.

The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there.

"This is the part of redevelopment everyone hates," said Hamid Gami, who is coordinating the relocation for Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency.

"It's tough. They're good people. We've offered them fair compensation, and we hope to come to an agreement. But this is a really important new development. The city has been trying to do this for years. It's good for all of Oakland. It's going to be a great project."

Gami said he hopes to work out a settlement with Revelli and Fung.

The business owners said they clung to hopes that the eminent domain decision might be overturned in court or that they could persuade the city to build the project and leave them alone.

"All those new residents will need someone to work on their cars," said Revelli, who has been working in the shop since he was in third grade helping his dad and uncle. "I don't want their money. I don't want to move. I just want to work right here."

Most of the other businesses closed their doors and left in the past two years. The only other holdout, Chef Edward's Barbeque, is expected to reopen about a block and a half away.

Fung and Revelli said the money offered by the city, about $100 per square foot plus relocation costs, was insufficient, saying the real estate boom has priced them out of nearby properties. They own their properties outright and have operated with low overhead.

"John works alone; I have one technician working with me -- that's it, '' said Fung, who bought his 2,500-square-foot shop in 1993. "The cost of buying or leasing a new site is prohibitive. The money the city offered me does not cover it."

Revelli, who has worked alone for the past 35 years, said no other location is as good as what he is losing.

"My customers are mainly women who work in the offices downtown. They can take BART if they have to leave their cars overnight," Revelli said. "There's really no equivalent location around here."

Both men said Friday that losing their businesses was like losing a piece of themselves.

"I've worked here full time since 1959, and I looked forward to coming to work every day," Revelli said. "I'm not ready to retire, but the city forced me into this. I don't have many options."

Fung, who is in his late 40s and raising his children, said retirement is not an option.

"I'm an immigrant from China, and this has been the fulfillment of my American dream," Fung said. "I worked hard. I played by the rules. But now it's all gone. I've got to start all over."

[url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/02/BAGO4DI6GJ1.DTL[/url]

Gabrielle

2005-07-03 15:25 | User Profile

Eminent Domain A New Tool for Business to Use?

Supreme Court Stirs Debate Over Seizing Private Land By PAT BRODERICK

San Diego Business Journal Staff

San Diego businessman Ed Plant is still bitter over losing his land and business to Petco Park.

Predictably, Plant was not heartened when the U.S. Supreme Court recently gave local governments even more authority to seize private property.

“It’s what’s been happening in San Diego already with the (Centre City Development Corp.) the past few years,” said Plant, who owned a cold storage facility in the ballpark’s footprint. “They were just ahead of their time, I guess.”

On June 23, the high court, in a 5-4 split decision, ruled that local governments have the right to take land and, in turn, give it to private developers to spur economic development and tax revenues for the community. The case in question, Kelo v. the city of New London, Conn., involved a group of local homeowners who resisted the taking of their property for commercial development to revitalize the economically depressed East Coast city.

California’s eminent domain law is stricter, requiring that seized property must be designated as blighted. Still, the ruling has stirred mixed reactions among a variety of camps.

Encinitas City Councilman Jerome Stocks on June 29 — alarmed by the ruling — proposed an ordinance that would grant more power to property owners.

Under his plan, Encinitas could not transfer private property to another private owner without first calling for a public vote in a regularly scheduled election, which would need a two-thirds majority to pass. The measure is scheduled to go to the City Council on July 13.

Steven S. Wall, a partner in Luce Forward’s San Diego office and an expert in condemnation and real estate litigation, is especially concerned about the definition of blight.

“In California and San Diego, you will see redevelopment agencies feeling comfortable flexing the power they have under California law to do redevelopment projects, saying, ‘We are able to broadly interpret the word blight, to include inadequate parking, not enough big parcels that can be used for shopping centers or big-box projects,’ ” he said. “ ‘We’re going to redevelop the area, and buy or condemn, and it doesn’t matter whether businesses or homes there are clean or well-kept.’ That is what the decision really means.”

Plant agreed.

“Who is going to be safe?” he said of the ruling. “Basically, all they have to do is say ‘blighted.’ What is the definition of blight? If someone has a home or business, the city can say ‘blighted,’ because it’s not making enough tax revenues. But everything can’t be about revenues going to the government agency. What happened to individual rights?”

Doug Barnhart, the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of the San Diego-based Barnhart Inc., whose firm is among the largest educational facilities builders in the nation, says the ruling will be good for business.

“Yes, I do,” said Barnhart, whose firm recently completed UC Riverside’s digital library. “I’m a Republican and sensitive to property rights. But the problems we have in public facilities in California in general, and San Diego in particular, is ‘not in my neighborhood.’ I think this will work against that. We will be able to put in facilities for the greater public good and locate them where they should be located. Property owners will get fair market value, or they can go to court. “In any of these things, there is a lot of heartburn,” Barnhart said. “Even with Petco Park, you had some of the companies who relocated not really happy. They’d been there for years and years and years. But now, you’d be hard-pressed to say it wasn’t a benefit.” Plant doesn’t disagree with that sentiment — up to a point.

“They did a good job Downtown,” said Plant, who continues to run another business, Harborside Refrigerated Services at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. “It’s done more for more people in the long run, but I think the city and CCDC isn’t looking for the individual, but the end of the rainbow. I think in the way I was treated, eminent domain has a tendency to be a bully.”

Plant, who contested the seizure of his property in court, ended up with $11 million, although he estimated that his property and business was worth $20 million. Then he was charged $1.6 million to clean up underground storage tanks that, “I didn’t put there” and eventually got about $800,000 of that back. But he was never relocated, said Plant. Instead, he reinvested the money into expanding his Harborside operation, which brings in from 60,000 to 100,000 tons of perishable goods a year. But, said Plant, it hasn’t made up for the demise of his Downtown business and the exodus of some of his customers to new competitors.

“You work most of your life building something, and it’s taken away,” he said. “I had controlled about 80 percent of the market, and now I probably have 30 percent of the market. It derived me a good living, and my property was appreciating Downtown. I planned on putting two high-rises down there. We had people interested.”

There were other ramifications of the seizure, Plant said.

“It messed up my credit rating,” he said. “When you go into eminent domain, the banks go crazy. We had a big moving expense. I am bitter because the CCDC tells half-truths. They tell you they’re going to help you, but in the meantime, they don’t. They just go their merry way. I’m not against the city. I just wish they would have a little more warm and fuzzy feeling for individuals.”

The CCDC is a city-run nonprofit corporation that coordinates redevelopment projects in the Downtown area. David Allsbrook, the manager of contracting and public works for the CCDC, has been involved in many of the city’s major developments, including the venerable Horton Plaza.

“There was a feeling that Ernie Hahn (Horton Plaza developer) wasn’t going to build the center when we were acquiring the property, that we didn’t know what we were doing and wouldn’t get it done,” Allsbrook recalled of the project that is credited with revitalizing the Gaslamp Quarter in the mid-1980s.

“The ballpark is the biggest example of where we had to use our power,” said Allsbrook of another project credited for transforming Downtown.

The Petco Park project resulted in 56 condemnation cases being filed, with all but six settled before trial and one during trial.

“Everybody thinks their property is worth more,” said Allsbrook. “People want to play it out, getting more money. That’s just the way it is.”

Some of the money paid during an eminent domain action is for “loss of good will,” he said. Posted date: 7/4/2005

“You go back and look at tax returns for the previous three years, and you come up with a number of what is the loss of business,” said Allsbrook. “Most businesses will make a claim for loss of good will, and ultimately they get compensated for it.” While Allsbrook says Plant and all the others affected by the ballpark were treated fairly, he also sympathizes with those targeted through eminent domain.

“Eminent domain is probably the most misunderstood, and is kind of frightening to people,” he said. “We all have property rights, and when we give government that power, it’s a little scary. We’ve always used it as a last resort for projects that have public purposes. Ninety percent of the development has been done without using the power of eminent domain. We have to pay fair market value.”

As for the Supreme Court ruling, Allsbrook said he doesn’t think it will make much difference locally.

“The opinion will have little, if any, impact on how property is acquired in the state,” said Allsbrook. “In California, the law is very clear that in order to take property, it must be in a redevelopment project area.”

But, said Allsbrook, that’s not to say that there is no potential for abuse.

“I would never say that,” he said. “Years ago, National City declared its golf course blighted. They wanted to build a shopping center. That is a stretch, and it was overturned. But the likelihood of it being abused is very small. There are enough checks and balances. When we acquire property, it goes through a community advisory group before it gets to the redevelopment agency.”

No Threat

State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, chairs the Senate committee on local government, which includes redevelopment agencies. She said she doesn’t view the Supreme Court ruling as a particular threat to San Diegans’ property rights.

“California law requires a finding of blight in order to execute eminent domain at the local level,” she said. “You have to go through an open process of public hearings.”

While new development resulting in added taxes would be considered a public benefit, “There world have to be a finding of blight,” Kehoe said. “Simply saying that you would be making more money on a shopping center than a house is not enough. I think that it would have to include areas that are severely underdeveloped or stagnant.

“Where Petco was built, the general area was not experiencing the kind of growth many areas of San Diego were,” she said. “The ballpark became an impetus for spectacular developments — restaurants, hotels, residential. The ballpark is a classic example of how redevelopment should work.”

Kehoe said that, as a homeowner, she feels for the property owners in the New London case.

Posted date: 7/4/2005

“I think states that don’t have protections that California has should consider that kind of legislation to protect against local abuses. I think that eminent domain is a tool that should never be abused, and every government body considering eminent domain should be careful to respect private property rights.” Boon Or Bane?

Jerry Livingston, staff counsel for the Building Industry Association of San Diego, considers the ruling “more of a boon to cities than developers.”

“Rarely do you benefit from this kind of ruling,” he added.

While more doors might now be opened to private developers under the ruling, Livingston said the downside is that those who already have built projects — paying considerable sums for permits and infrastructure improvements — also stand to lose if they’re on the other side. The National Association of Home Builders filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, arguing that a ruling against the property owners could lead to abuses on the part of local governments.

As for local impact, Livingston said, “I don’t know if it will happen immediately in communities here. The right of eminent domain is a two-edged sword for most politicians these days. I think the city will pay close attention to creating redevelopment areas and what the political implications are with eminent domain.”

Pointing to the city’s dire financial straits, Livingston said there could be a temptation “to take advantage of economic development to increase money in city coffers.”

“We will watch what happens at the state level for any proposals to change the redevelopment law,” he said.

But, Kehoe said, for now at least, there is nothing in the pipeline to change the law.

Donna Jones, special counsel in the real estate, land use and environmental practice group for Sheppard Mullin’s San Diego office, has her hand in many of the major projects being developed in the county, including Black Mountain Ranch, a 4,700-acre mixed-use master planned development on the city/county boundary in North County.

“It’s rare that agencies try to condemn property and turn it over to private business,” she said. “I don’t think it will be used routinely. Politicians won’t want to do something where their constituents say, ‘You are in the hands of development,’ but only when it’s necessary and in the community’s best interest.”

The potential for abuse exists, said Jones, especially in San Diego today with so much mistrust of the City Council and government in general.

“Some will be concerned about abuses, that somebody makes a larger contribution, and they decide to do something in favor of that person,” Jones said. “But I trust City Council more than most people. I think they’re trying to do what’s best. They will be careful, knowing that the media will be looking.”

Mitch Mitchell, the vice president of public policy and communications for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, agrees that the ruling will spur more scrutiny against potential abuses. “Everybody’s saying, ‘Property rights, property rights, property rights,’ ” he said. “We have a lack of land to build on and cities are always going to be looking at more tax opportunities. With all that, there will be scrutiny.

“It’s guaranteed, because of this ruling, that the watchdogs would be more vigilant. In the end, the government will be scrutinized and that public scrutiny is the best check-and-balance you can ask for.”

Attorney Wall added: “The bigger issue here is: What will we see in the way of social changes? Will it encourage redevelopment agencies to go beyond and take a more aggressive stand in the future in terms of a broad definition of public purpose and what is blight? There are challenges. It will come back to taking a hard look at officials elected to public office.”

But the public won’t be the only sector keeping an eye out, predicted Wall.

“The condemnation bar will be watching closely to see what happens,” he said.

[url]http://www.sdbj.com/article.asp?aID=52711494.9787692.1164215.3795303.7938853.138&aID2=89546[/url]

Ponce

2005-07-03 16:09 | User Profile

Been there done that:

"When the government do not protect the people it is then the right of the people to take over the government for the people are the government"... Ponce :gunsmilie

Brian Hassett

2005-07-04 02:24 | User Profile

This could turn out to one of the future hotbutton issues in American politics. Al Gore, in his bid for the presidency, talked about government directing development based on economic/environmental concerns without the consent of the people. The American Revolution started over taxation without representation and it is doubtful the American people will tolerate large scale evictions via government fiat.

formerfreeper

2005-07-04 03:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Brian Hassett] The American Revolution started over taxation without representation and it is doubtful the American people will tolerate large scale evictions via government fiat.[/QUOTE] I dunno, Brian...

I'm starting to wonder if most of the American people are just a bunch of sheep. I've heard the folks in my area say "It won't happen here...." so that alone has me worried.

They, on the other hand, will be very worried whan the local, state or federal gov't comes a-knocking to serve them their papers to get the heck outta dodge. For all the "education" that people are supposed to have nowadays, it seems that as a nation the US population (or at least the nits I'm seeing recently) has taken two giants steps back in defending their rights as property owners.

I hope to all hell that I'm wrong..........

Brian Hassett

2005-07-04 03:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=formerfreeper]I dunno, Brian...

I'm starting to wonder if most of the American people are just a bunch of sheep. I've heard the folks in my area say "It won't happen here...." so that alone has me worried.

They, on the other hand, will be very worried whan the local, state or federal gov't comes a-knocking to serve them their papers to get the heck outta dodge. For all the "education" that people are supposed to have nowadays, it seems that as a nation the US population (or at least the nits I'm seeing recently) has taken two giants steps back in defending their rights as property owners.

I hope to all hell that I'm wrong..........[/QUOTE] I hope that this is the type of issue that gets people going because it quite literally hits close to home.

Walter Yannis

2005-07-04 04:40 | User Profile

The problem with this decision is the same problem that bedevils all of our economic thinking; i.e. we don't know how to quantify social capital, and so we illogically choose simply to ignore it.

In economic terms protecting this man's business generates a great deal of social capital - confidence in the system, stability of community anchors, predictability of economic results. Allowing well-connected businessmen to take property by simply showing that more tax revenue can be generated via another use contradicts each of these points (and others) and thereby destroys vast swaths of social capital.

We desparately need smart people who can develop a better economic theory to account for the intangible, but very real, value generated by stability, predictability and heightened morality.

[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18546]Some valiant attempts are being made[/URL]. We all need to read up on social capital theory, because this is really where the rubber hits the road in all of our policy debates.

Ponce

2005-07-04 05:10 | User Profile

The difference between the oh so proud Americans and the Jews is that they (the Jews) are organise and like a bee hive work as one for the good of the race.

The first thing that Americans must do is to pick a leader that even though they don't like at least they can trust.

Remember that Herr Hitler wasen't even a German and yet he came at a time when he was needed the most and the Germans rally around him like a moth to a fire.

Reading everything that is going on in this country and looking at what the Americans are doing in like watching a bunch of bugs running around when the lights are turned on.

There are many things that has to be done:

1= Get out of Iraq and Afgha. 2= Make peace once again with the Muslims and Arabs 3= Terminate all aid to the Zionist state of Israel and help the Palestinians. 4= Bring jobs back to America and those who don't return higher taxes. 5= Educate the kids to think and not just create drones. 6= Take control of the health care (like in Canada) 7= Protect the citizens from the white collar criminals 8= Clean up the jails from drug users (help them)and more jail time for dealers. 9= Equal justice for all, including law enforcemen agents 10= Close the borders and clean house of illegals 11= Fix the tax system where everyone will pay their fair share. 12= No more street people, more housing and medicaid 13= Cheaper medecine for the elderly and help for everyone else 14= Nationalise the oil companies 15= No government control of the WWW 16= Pupular vote in choosing the president 17= Card voting instead of computers (the old way) 18= No more eminent domain 19= Woman choice of abortion (once and for all) 20= Cut way back on "Homeland Security" (we are the terrorists)

There is a hell of a lot more that could be done and if we were to find one person that would support at least five of the aboves it would be a good start.

"When the government is not for the good of the people it is then the right of the people to take over the government for the people are the government".. Ponce :whstl:

BlueBonnet

2005-07-04 05:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce] 16= Pupular vote in choosing the president [/QUOTE] See my sig. We are a Republic for a reason. At least we used to have a reason, now we got idiots as far as the eye can see.

Ponce

2005-07-04 05:31 | User Profile

As the less educated individual on this board I have the less to loose therefore I'll get the ball rolling.

We need a head of state that will work for the good of the people but for the people of the United States of America.

[B]WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE US AND WHY?.........[/B]

Come on people......BRING IT ON.

Brian Hassett

2005-07-04 14:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The problem with this decision is the same problem that bedevils all of our economic thinking; i.e. we don't know how to quantify social capital, and so we illogically choose simply to ignore it.

In economic terms protecting this man's business generates a great deal of social capital - confidence in the system, stability of community anchors, predictability of economic results. Allowing well-connected businessmen to take property by simply showing that more tax revenue can be generated via another use contradicts each of these points (and others) and thereby destroys vast swaths of social capital.

We desparately need smart people who can develop a better economic theory to account for the intangible, but very real, value generated by stability, predictability and heightened morality.

[url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18546"]Some valiant attempts are being made[/url]. We all need to read up on social capital theory, because this is really where the rubber hits the road in all of our policy debates.[/QUOTE] Well said Walter. Stability is a necessary end in itself. America's growth depends on the faith that people put in the dollar and the sanctity of ownership. Why would I invest in a business and pour my blood, sweat and tears into it for years knowing that the government can take it at any time for "fair" market value. The Founding Fathers believed that land ownership was a prerequisite for voting.

Happy Hacker

2005-07-04 15:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]In economic terms protecting this man's business generates a great deal of social capital - confidence in the system, stability of community anchors, predictability of economic results. Allowing well-connected businessmen to take property by simply showing that more tax revenue can be generated via another use contradicts each of these points (and others) and thereby destroys vast swaths of social capital.[/QUOTE]

I think you're giving those in power too much credit. It isn't disregard for social capital because they don't understand social capital, it's that they're getting kickbacks or getting kicks out of playing commie.

Ponce

2005-07-04 17:32 | User Profile

The American people are always making fun of the "bannanas" republics in Latin America because we are having revolutions all the time in order to overthrow the govenment.

At least we are doing what we think is right when something is wrong with the government.

You Americans have been trained by your government to be more docile and to obey orders.

In order to defeat the enemy you must know the enemy and for a while now I have been reading about the Jews and the reason that they didn't fight the Germans (but for a few of them), I came up with the conclusion that the problem was that they were trainned to obey order no matter what and without giving any thoughts as to why the orders were given....think about it.

There is the story of a meeting between a Russian General and a American Admiral aboard an American ship and they were discussing which side had better soldiers and then the American told the Russian "I'll prove to you that the American Troops are better", the American call on a sailor and told him "climb that mast and come down again" and told the Russian "have one of your man do the same"

The American sailor came down and the General told him " go up again" and then " go up again" and then "go up again", meanwhile the Russian was doing the same whith his man till finally the American soldier asked the American Admiral "sir, why the hell am I doing this?"......the American Admiral looked at the Russian and told him "that's what make our troops better, they ask questions".

The American people should think the same way and just don't do what the government tells you to do and think on your own.

Again.......who would you like to be your president and why?, at least I am trying to do something about it.

Snouter

2005-07-04 19:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce] 1= Get out of Iraq and Afgha.

If we leave, I would suggest either nuking it or hiring Chinese to do the job of killing the Muslim Terrorists without the left wing media looking over their shoulder.

[QUOTE=Ponce]2= Make peace once again with the Muslims and Arabs

It is simply impossible to get along with Muslims in large numbers unless you convert to Islam and want to go back to the stone age.

[QUOTE=Ponce]3= Terminate all aid to the Zionist state of Israel

I agree.

[QUOTE=Ponce] and help the Palestinians.

These are simply "Egyptian and Jordanian" Arab Muslims who have been brainwashed to be terrorists. They are causing the problems there.

[QUOTE=Ponce]4= Bring jobs back to America and those who don't return higher taxes.

If something is built better in Japan, why pretend American workers can do it better?

[QUOTE=Ponce]5= Educate the kids to think and not just create drones.

Not sure about this. Clearly some races of people are better off doing simple labor, and this goes for some White people also.

[QUOTE=Ponce]6= Take control of the health care (like in Canada)

I agree, Hillary notwithstanding, there needs to be a massive overhaul of the medical care.

[QUOTE=Ponce]7= Protect the citizens from the white collar criminals

I agree, and also blue collar crooks (electricians, plumbers, landscapers, etc.)

[QUOTE=Ponce]8= Clean up the jails from drug users (help them)and more jail time for dealers.

The jails need to be completely reformed. No homosexual rapes should be permitted, no gang activity should be permitted, etc.

[QUOTE=Ponce]9= Equal justice for all, including law enforcemen agents

Corrupt cops should be punished severely. Cops who rough up a filthy criminals should be rewarded instead of having lawsuits filed against them by subversive groups like the ACLU.

[QUOTE=Ponce]10= Close the borders and clean house of illegals

I agree. Also pass legislation to discourage invaders to begin with.

[QUOTE=Ponce]11= Fix the tax system where everyone will pay their fair share.

As long as there is a welfare class, the only fair way is probably a consumption tax.

[QUOTE=Ponce]12= No more street people, more housing and medicaid

Also, sterilization programs.

[QUOTE=Ponce]13= Cheaper medecine for the elderly and help for everyone else

Free market competition is the primary way for that to happen to avoid shortages.

[QUOTE=Ponce]14= Nationalise the oil companies

Oil company stock can be owned by individual investors, so in a sense the people can own the oil companies to some extent if they choose to.

[QUOTE=Ponce]15= No government control of the WWW

Certainly no taxing of transactions.

[QUOTE=Ponce]16= Pupular vote in choosing the president

I agree.

[QUOTE=Ponce]17= Card voting instead of computers (the old way)

I support computer based voting.

[QUOTE=Ponce]18= No more eminent domain

This can have some application in bad areas of cities. For example, I just read that the Bridgeport is going to do something about some of the worst areas of that disgusting city. I don't know where the Negroes and Latrinos will go if there is urban renewal in the slums, maybe they will be given occupancy rights on taxpayer money.

[QUOTE=Ponce]19= Woman choice of abortion (once and for all)

I don't think there is that much magical about a fetus in the first few weeks. However, as time passes and the unborn baby takes shape, that is a different story.

[QUOTE=Ponce]20= Cut way back on "Homeland Security" (we are the terrorists)

No, the Muslim Terrorists are the terrorists. Homeland Security is an absolute joke. The obvious place to start is to not allow any Arab Muslims near airports, but common sense racial profiling is now forbidden by the politically correct establishment.

formerfreeper

2005-07-04 21:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]See my sig. We are a Republic for a reason. At least we used to have a reason, now we got idiots as far as the eye can see.[/QUOTE]

The sig is nothing short of brilliant!

I'd like to give you a good reason to further this nation being a republic....

Dad took me out to lunch today (our favorite greasy spoon diner!) When we were coming out, a High school age girl (dressed like a local streetwalker) was looking at the Tags on my truck (I have a Purple Heart tag---not by choice)

In a moment of pure brilliance, she asks if I was in the military--I said yes.

She asked if I wounded in combat--I said yes, I was wounded in GWI.

She asked if it hurt--I ignored that.

She started railing against every war since the time of Moses. My dad (an 85 y/o "Screaming Eagle" ) asked her the priceless question:

"Little lady, is your thong on too tight?"

She walked away, and on the way home my Dad told me what worried him about that youngster. I figured that it was that she was of, or near, voting age--back came the classic answer

"That's part of it, but I'm afraid that she might reproduce someday"

Thank God for a Republic!

Ponce

2005-07-04 22:50 | User Profile

Snouter: In regards to (1) Why send Chinese there or anyone else and why not just leave them alone? and why are they "TERRORISTS"?. They havent done anything to the US in the US itself and as far as overseas goes is a free for all.

(2) We made anemys out of the Muslims and Arabs by supporting the Zionist state of Israel not only financially but also by enslaving the Palsetinean people.

(3) If someone were to invade the US you can be sure as hell that I also would become a "terrorist" and I don't care what name you give them they were there when the Zionist came from Europe and stole their land.

(5) You say "some races are better for simple labor". Like what? black people to be servants and Mexicans to work in your garden and then what about me? I am from Cuba, what am I good for? to cut sugar cane?

(11) "Consumption tax" not for those who are retired and with a fixed income, that would be double taxation and a burden to them.

(12) That I know only the Germans and Jews did that and at one time it did happen here in America.

(13) Some elderly do die because they cannot afford their medecines and many are eating cat food in order to afford their medecines.

(14) National security and the well-being of the people takes precedence over those who can "afford" stocks.

(17) I disagree, comps are easy to manipulate.

(20) You keep kalling the Muslims "terrorists" so once again , why?

I AM VERY SORRY THAT NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS DAY IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND I AM DEEPLY HURT.

REMEMBER WHAT THE 4TH OF JULY MEANS TO YOU AND YOUR LOVES ONE.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA...........AND THANK YOU.......Ponce.

formerfreeper

2005-07-04 22:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]I AM VERY SORRY THAT NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS DAY IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND I AM DEEPLY HURT.

REMEMBER WHAT THE 4TH OF JULY MEANS TO YOU AND YOUR LOVES ONE.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA...........AND THANK YOU.......Ponce.[/QUOTE]

Just because no one has "said anything" does not mean they do not care--or do not remember.

I see plenty of FReakers on Free Republic spouting their so-called "patriotism"---and some there have not a clue as to what freedom and independence entails.

Their Patriotism rings (pun not intended) somewhat hollow

BlueBonnet

2005-07-05 00:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=formerfreeper]The sig is nothing short of brilliant! Thanks! Benji's one of my favorites to quote.

I'd like to give you a good reason to further this nation being a republic....

Dad took me out to lunch today (our favorite greasy spoon diner!) When we were coming out, a High school age girl (dressed like a local streetwalker) was looking at the Tags on my truck (I have a Purple Heart tag---not by choice)

In a moment of pure brilliance, she asks if I was in the military--I said yes.

She asked if I wounded in combat--I said yes, I was wounded in GWI.

She asked if it hurt--I ignored that.

She started railing against every war since the time of Moses. My dad (an 85 y/o "Screaming Eagle" ) asked her the priceless question:

"Little lady, is your thong on too tight?"

She walked away, and on the way home my Dad told me what worried him about that youngster. I figured that it was that she was of, or near, voting age--back came the classic answer

"That's part of it, but I'm afraid that she might reproduce someday"

Thank God for a Republic![/QUOTE] What was the look on her face when your dad asked if her thong was too tight? That's priceless.:biggrin:

formerfreeper

2005-07-05 00:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]Thanks! Benji's one of my favorites to quote. What was the look on her face when your dad asked if her thong was too tight? That's priceless.:biggrin:[/QUOTE] She looked a bit perplexed. I'm not sure if she had no answer or-more likely-sarcasm was beyond her comprehension.

Dad is full of great lines. He often says (when hearing some youngsters of today complain about insignificant things) "I got dropped [on D-Day] in a village full of Germans and I didn't complain so much!" (They were 5 miles off their drop point. It was, as Dad calls it, a "big 'oops' ")

He liks Benji as well---says you gotta have a lot respect for the man. Dad says he was a bit of a wildman in his day, is that true?

formerfreeper

2005-07-05 03:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]

You Americans have been trained by your government to be more docile and to obey orders.[/QUOTE] You need to get around this country a bit more before you make a statement like that.

There are plenty of Americans that are anything but docile. You make a lot here sound like good little Nazis....bad move.

Ponce

2005-07-05 03:33 | User Profile

FORMERFREEPER: You know what I feel like? one time at Jeff Rense . com the picture of the day was that of a parade and it showed the flag going by and the only one standing as straight as he could and holding his hand over his heart was a guy in a wheel chair.

I am blessed by many things in life and two of those were my parents, my dad a Cuban who is one of the most intellegent and smart person I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, at age 84 (hes 93 now) a book of his in engineering was published in Cuba and for that to happen is like someone winning the lottery.

My mother was born in Atlanta and always spoke Spanish with an American accent the same as I do now not only in English but also in Spanish, as a matter of fact I do better with my other three languages that I know.

As many intelligent people as we have here it would have taken no time at all for one of them to post something about the 4th of July, while I am not a flag waver (hummmmm that's a lie, I have 12 of them infront of my home) I believe that is no shame to say a little something.

As far as making a lot of you sound like nice little Nazis? at leat twice a week I go to the big town and stand at the corner with the most traffic with my anti-Zionist sign, many of those people have spat at me and always give me the Israeli national salute.....the middle finger. What are you doing to show your anger?

formerfreeper

2005-07-05 12:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce] What are you doing to show your anger?[/QUOTE] For one thing, I spend my adult life (a LONG time!) in the Navy--including 4 combat tours--and in the end it cost me both my legs. I know of others that lost everything one can lose. I figure that to be a good start. I could have taken the easy part out, like those that figure they would "do four and no mor"e and get a free education courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I show a lot less anger then you do--and I'm going to spend the rest of my life in a wheelchair. So I do not need a lecture by you about how to lead my life, or how I should or should not behave. A lot of the anger I see from you is what I saw at Free Republic. It was more than enough for me.

I use logic and facts to show my side, not venomous posts that do nothing but cause further problems and ill will. I have done more to show people the right way by merely sitting down and explaining to them what is reality and what is fantasy. Going down to a street corner is fine and holding some sign is fine---but if you think that will get you anything more than the finger, you are deluding yourself. Why don't you use your beliefs to explain to others what the hell is going on in this country? I think that would be a lot better for all of us.

As for the remark I made about Nazi's the line you said about the Americans being "docile" and "following orders" was precisely the charges made against the Germans post- World War Two. I grant that many Americans aren't doing much, but be careful as to what charges you make and how you make them. There are those who aren't all that docile.

I hope that if you happen to write elected officials (and others for that matter) that you don't address them the way you address myself and others. If you do so, you will find yourself among the blatantly ignored and do the conservative movement a lot of harm at the same time. Is that what you REALLY want to do?

If it isn't, you might want to try a different approach --you will find that you will win a lot of converts to the our side. Again, look at the FReepers--they have gone from willing to explain the situtation to over-the-top hysterics. They love to brag about all the flag they fly too---as if the more flags a person flies determines their "patriotism". What utter twaddle......

Food for thought.