Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Arrogant state agency gets its comeuppance

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Arrogant state agency gets its comeuppance

    Long known as the most arrogant of our state agencies, NCDOT got spanked in court yesterday. I fully expect them to take the case to the State Supreme Court for a second time, just because the folks running the agency are assholes, and it's not about serving the public to them, but being a bully and beating up on taxpayers who pay their salaries.

    Over 300 landowners basically got their land taken between 9 and 20 years ago when the state designated a new beltway around Winston-Salem and mapped it, but never gave them just compensation. In effect it prevents the owners from being any more than squatters on their own land.

    Beltway landowners got a slam-dunk ruling in their favor from the N.C. Court of Appeals Tuesday morning, as the appeals court told the N.C. Department of Transportation to begin filing plats and making deposits on hundreds of properties in the path of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.

    Barring a state appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court, the opinion means that the Transportation Department has to begin appraising hundreds of properties in the path of the beltway and paying deposits — plus interest — from 1997 or 2008, whichever date applies to the time the property was designated as being in the beltway path under the Map Act.
    http://www.journalnow.com/news/local...4b80e1c79.html

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Long known as the most arrogant of our state agencies, NCDOT got spanked in court yesterday. I fully expect them to take the case to the State Supreme Court for a second time, just because the folks running the agency are assholes, and it's not about serving the public to them, but being a bully and beating up on taxpayers who pay their salaries.

    Over 300 landowners basically got their land taken between 9 and 20 years ago when the state designated a new beltway around Winston-Salem and mapped it, but never gave them just compensation. In effect it prevents the owners from being any more than squatters on their own land.



    http://www.journalnow.com/news/local...4b80e1c79.html
    Think about that my dear when you consider the land that will have to be appropriated to build Trumps wall. Its impossible to guess just how many years it will take.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Think about that my dear when you consider the land that will have to be appropriated to build Trumps wall. Its impossible to guess just how many years it will take.
    Yours is a spurious argument. A wall to prevent trespassers is a benefit to the landowner. Here's the alternative: if a landowner doesn't want his land taken for construction of the wall then don't take it. Of course that area would then become a highway for illegals trespassing, stealing and shitting all over his property.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Yours is a spurious argument. A wall to prevent trespassers is a benefit to the landowner. Here's the alternative: if a landowner doesn't want his land taken for construction of the wall then don't take it. Of course that area would then become a highway for illegals trespassing, stealing and shitting all over his property.
    There are any number of land owners who do not want to sell their property for any number of good reasons. There are those who do not want to stare at a wall, those who will lose a portion of their property since it will be on the "wrong" side of the wall. there are the conservationists who feel the wall will hurt wildlife, and then we have those who wont sell because they hate trump. It could be well over a decade before all the land needed is obtained, and all of this assumes that Congress will pass funding.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    There are any number of land owners who do not want to sell their property for any number of good reasons. There are those who do not want to stare at a wall, those who will lose a portion of their property since it will be on the "wrong" side of the wall. there are the conservationists who feel the wall will hurt wildlife, and then we have those who wont sell because they hate trump. It could be well over a decade before all the land needed is obtained, and all of this assumes that Congress will pass funding.
    I am not an advocate for eminent domain being used for private endeavors, but in this case, land owners won't have any choice. The Constitution spells this out in no uncertain terms.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    MAGA MAN (11-22-2017)

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Yours is a spurious argument. A wall to prevent trespassers is a benefit to the landowner. Here's the alternative: if a landowner doesn't want his land taken for construction of the wall then don't take it. Of course that area would then become a highway for illegals trespassing, stealing and shitting all over his property.
    Eminent domain.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    There are any number of land owners who do not want to sell their property for any number of good reasons. There are those who do not want to stare at a wall, those who will lose a portion of their property since it will be on the "wrong" side of the wall. there are the conservationists who feel the wall will hurt wildlife, and then we have those who wont sell because they hate trump. It could be well over a decade before all the land needed is obtained, and all of this assumes that Congress will pass funding.
    One of your arguments is against eminent domain, which has long been upheld. The second, wildlife migration, has been dealt with in any limited access highway project; again decades of court rulings in favor of the right-of-way.

    But all that becomes moot when you consider the alternative. Again, my opinion is if the landowners don't want to sell, then don't sell, and face the consequences of foreign invaders trespassing and shitting all over their land.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    I am not an advocate for eminent domain being used for private endeavors, but in this case, land owners won't have any choice. The Constitution spells this out in no uncertain terms.
    They have the choice of fighting for their land in court and those cases can drag out for many years.

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,317
    Thanks
    145,739
    Thanked 82,543 Times in 52,755 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Yours is a spurious argument. A wall to prevent trespassers is a benefit to the landowner. Here's the alternative: if a landowner doesn't want his land taken for construction of the wall then don't take it. Of course that area would then become a highway for illegals trespassing, stealing and shitting all over his property.
    Hmm. It seems unlikely that a wall being built to keep out "trespassers" on a national level would have a handy hole in it because a landowner refused to cooperate. Eminent domain is legal. But is it always ethical to use? I don't see the difference between your scenario of the NC landowners who were not correctly compensated, and the TX landowners who will be losing part of their property. Both reasons (road, and wall) are for "the public good."

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    They have the choice of fighting for their land in court and those cases can drag out for many years.
    Yours is a specious argument. The wall is no different than any highway project, which typically takes 10, 20, or 30 years from conception to completion. Homeland security is a long-term issue.

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Hmm. It seems unlikely that a wall being built to keep out "trespassers" on a national level would have a handy hole in it because a landowner refused to cooperate. Eminent domain is legal. But is it always ethical to use? I don't see the difference between your scenario of the NC landowners who were not correctly compensated, and the TX landowners who will be losing part of their property. Both reasons (road, and wall) are for "the public good."
    In the NC case the State essentially took the land without compensating the owners. So I don't see where your comparison has any validity.

    Even moreso because the US border has always been there. At least longer than the current landowners.

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Yours is a specious argument. The wall is no different than any highway project, which typically takes 10, 20, or 30 years from conception to completion. Homeland security is a long-term issue.
    The wall will never be built, even if approved by Congress, which in itself may never happen, the next president will cancel it out.

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    The wall will never be built, even if approved by Congress, which in itself may never happen, the next president will cancel it out.
    Your argument now is the equivalent of taking your bat and ball and going home, lol. You make this way too easy.

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    They have the choice of fighting for their land in court and those cases can drag out for many years.
    And what of land owners who have been begging for relief for decades? Screw them?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    MAGA MAN (11-22-2017)

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    The wall will never be built, even if approved by Congress, which in itself may never happen, the next president will cancel it out.
    Trump will cancel out his own proposal? Doubtful.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    MAGA MAN (11-22-2017)

Similar Threads

  1. What an arrogant bastard he is?!!
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2017, 03:37 PM
  2. Chris Christie now accused of interfering with a state agency
    By Yoda in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-14-2014, 08:12 PM
  3. The stupid Youth who blindly voted for obama now get their comeuppance
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-24-2013, 08:37 AM
  4. The arrogant hypocrite
    By NOVA in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-07-2013, 12:27 PM
  5. State agency offices pollute creek in Vancouver
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 02:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •