polksalet Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5254 I'm willing to bet that there is much more to this story than the man's POV. He was hunting, correct? Had a weapon and was in a heating argument with the energy company...police arrive on the scene and see an armed man or a man with a hunting rife on the back of his ATV pitching a fix....what would you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share Posted December 5, 2009 I'm willing to bet that there is much more to this story than the man's POV. He was hunting, correct? Had a weapon and was in a heating argument with the energy company...police arrive on the scene and see an armed man or a man with a hunting rife on the back of his ATV pitching a fix....what would you do? I would make the crew vacate the property, duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I would make the crew vacate the property, duh. No, I mean if you were the cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 No, I mean if you were the cop. I think he knew you meant the cop. The cop could have made the crew leave the property. I think that is what Polk meant??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Must be a tad more to this than we know right now. That said, if I had to list the things that concern me the most, property rights vs officialdom would be in the top 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted December 6, 2009 Author Share Posted December 6, 2009 I think he knew you meant the cop. The cop could have made the crew leave the property. I think that is what Polk meant??? si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark5 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 As far as easements go, (things may be different in other states and may have changed in the last 5 so years) but we HAVE to come to an agreement with the homeowner or choose a different route but we do have the upper hand. If we can prove it is the only way to go we can override the homeowners complaints with the state, county backing us up. This just happened about a month ago with said homeowner pulling a shotgun on our crew. They left the property and came back with the sheriffs dept. Ran the line, fixed the problem and left. Kinda like when they want to widen a road and take part of your front yard.. TOUGH NUTS HOMEOWNER, here is a few dollars for your property, now go back inside.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 As far as easements go, (things may be different in other states and may have changed in the last 5 so years) but we HAVE to come to an agreement with the homeowner or choose a different route but we do have the upper hand. If we can prove it is the only way to go we can override the homeowners complaints with the state, county backing us up. This just happened about a month ago with said homeowner pulling a shotgun on our crew. They left the property and came back with the sheriffs dept. Ran the line, fixed the problem and left. Kinda like when they want to widen a road and take part of your front yard.. TOUGH NUTS HOMEOWNER, here is a few dollars for your property, now go back inside.. That is not really accurate. In Texas the state can seize land by eminent domain and it has to go through the courts for condemnation. If however the landowner brings a shotgun into the scene it is aggravated assault. When roads are widened the landowner is compensated according to how much land is taken and is paid at fair market value per a legal appraisal unless the land is in an existing easement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hmmm, this is a conservative head-exploder - benevolent big business tramples on property rights. What EVER shall the righties do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 As far as easements go, (things may be different in other states and may have changed in the last 5 so years) but we HAVE to come to an agreement with the homeowner or choose a different route but we do have the upper hand. If we can prove it is the only way to go we can override the homeowners complaints with the state, county backing us up. This just happened about a month ago with said homeowner pulling a shotgun on our crew. They left the property and came back with the sheriffs dept. Ran the line, fixed the problem and left. Kinda like when they want to widen a road and take part of your front yard.. TOUGH NUTS HOMEOWNER, here is a few dollars for your property, now go back inside.. Corporations are good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 That is not really accurate. In Texas the state can seize land by eminent domain and it has to go through the courts for condemnation. If however the landowner brings a shotgun into the scene it is aggravated assault. When roads are widened the landowner is compensated according to how much land is taken and is paid at fair market value per a legal appraisal unless the land is in an existing easement. Pretty sure that here, the local authority has a three foot easement making up the last three feet of every residential property. That means they can steal your land with minimum cost. Just for grins, if they put a sidewalk in by taking your land, you're compelled to keep it snow-free too. Daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 Pretty sure that here, the local authority has a three foot easement making up the last three feet of every residential property. That means they can steal your land with minimum cost. Just for grins, if they put a sidewalk in by taking your land, you're compelled to keep it snow-free too. Daily. The county has a 25' easement into my place which is very common here. They can expand the road but are not allowed to place utilities on it without going through proper channels. Thank goodness snow is a minor concern here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hmmm, this is a conservative head-exploder - benevolent big business tramples on property rights. What EVER shall the righties do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hmmm, this is a conservative head-exploder - benevolent big business tramples on property rights. What EVER shall the righties do? Not even a little bit of a head exploder. Property rights win every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Not even a little bit of a head exploder. Property rights win every time. +1 Kind of. If you know the property has an easement when you buy it, it is pretty hard to argue about it after the fact. Outside of easements then yes property rights every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Not even a little bit of a head exploder. Property rights win every time. How dare those property owners impede this countries economy .. Very unpatriotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 How dare those property owners impede this countries economy .. Very unpatriotic. kind of a dumb thing to say if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 kind of a dumb thing to say if you ask me. And you're suprised that yukon would say something dumb? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 We don't own anything. The state, meaning a government entity, owns everything. We just rent property from the government. If you owned the land would you be paying taxes on it over and over? Try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years and see who really "owns" it. You will be forcibly evicted from the real owner's property without a legal leg to protest on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 We don't own anything. The state, meaning a government entity, owns everything. We just rent property from the government. If you owned the land would you be paying taxes on it over and over? Try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years and see who really "owns" it. You will be forcibly evicted from the real owner's property without a legal leg to protest on. This is one of those spurious libertarian arguments founded on not a lot. The fact that you own something should not be confused with the fact that taxes are payable on that same something. Once the mortgage and all liens are clear, you do own your property. You are responsible for it's maintenance and also it's taxes but you do own it. If you don't pay the taxes, you have in effect re-mortgaged your property to the government, hence the reason they could eventually boot you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 kind of a dumb thing to say if you ask me. be careful or we will take your guns you silly boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 This is one of those spurious libertarian arguments founded on not a lot. The fact that you own something should not be confused with the fact that taxes are payable on that same something. Once the mortgage and all liens are clear, you do own your property. You are responsible for it's maintenance and also it's taxes but you do own it. If you don't pay the taxes, you have in effect re-mortgaged your property to the government, hence the reason they could eventually boot you out. Explain again how I "re-mortgaged" my property. What did I receive for my "re-mortgage"? I would have prefered Thomas Jefferson's original penning in the Declaration of, "...life, liberty, and property...". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Explain again how I "re-mortgaged" my property. What did I receive for my "re-mortgage"? I would have prefered Thomas Jefferson's original penning in the Declaration of, "...life, liberty, and property...". Ownership of property requires payment of property taxes. This is known going in. The taxes are not for your property per se but for the services and maintenance of the surrounding community. Taxes don't change because a mortgage is paid. Failure to pay said taxes gives opening for a lien, which, in effect, is a mortgage since someone else has a claim against the property, hence I used the term re-mortgage. Same applies to a car - you own it free and clear but still must pay taxes to operate it on the public highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Hmmm, this is a conservative head-exploder - benevolent big business tramples on property rights. What EVER shall the righties do? hmmmm.... You familiar w. Kelo v. New London... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London Edited December 8, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.