newsobserver.com projects - eminent domain - Comments

Re: Domain bill condemned to committee

JPQuick — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:03:36 -0400

Given that the working poor are most often the targets of "eminent domain," the domain amendment should have sailed through a General Assembly controlled by Democrats.

Unfortunately, the General Assembly is controlled by a different kind of Democrat, the seamy species known as "machine politician."

Bev's record shows the disconnect between Democratic party principles and Democrats in Raleigh, including:

$1 billion in regressive sales taxes on the working poor
No protection from eminent domain laws for inner-city residents
No incentives to create private sector jobs for the unemployed

AND

Significant spending cuts in programs designed to assist the weakest elements of our society through the recession.

Bev's policies do not serve the needs of the electorate, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat.

Re: Domain bill condemned to committee

PaulTerrell — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:43:47 -0400

The Democratic party does not represent the private property owners in this state. If you voted for them last time please reconsider before next year.

Re: Domain bill condemned to committee

robdarich — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:19:00 -0400

Oh yeah, like the legislature's going to impede others ability to "appropriate" your property.

Ronnie Sutton paid around $68K to get elected. Does he claim not to be a sellout, or is he upfront about it?

confusing short title and title

gercohen — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:43:35 -0400

Ryan, you are not setting out the titles as the main object in your post, but the short titles. Both the short title and the title appear both in the bill and in the searchable online database. The short title is limited to 45 characters and spaces. The short title is what appears on the floor calendar and as the header in the School of Government Daily Bulletin, it is also used by our indexers to help them build our term word index, which is done by people, not a computer.

"Eminent Domain" is the short title, the full title is stated clearly in the bill is "AN ACT to allow differential treatment of nonprofit organizations whose property is condemned so as to allow replacement value rather than fair market value." and is not hidden anywhere.

If the bill is enacted, the short title drops away. It is just used for internal reference. The drafter took a 138 character long title WHICH APPEARS AT THE TOP OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT and shortened it to 14 for the SHORT title. If the short title has been "differential treatment of nonprofits" would that have conveyed more or less information about the bill compared to "EMINENT DOMAIN". We chose the latter.

Re: Stam gives session mixed grades

Cdickson — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:14:44 -0400

Stam appears to be using the same farce of a grading scale to evaluate this session that the Dept. of Public Instruction uses to "grade" end of grade tests.

Re: Stam gives session mixed grades

mbrock49 — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:34:41 -0400

Stam must be losing his touch. If he excuses the sham of debate (all orchestrated by the "Big Chairs") on the Budget Bill, he does not retain the right to call the Republicans the "Loyal Opposition." Someone, especially the Minority Leader, should have called their bluff on the budget, and required time to really know its content before voting. I had too many conversations with legislators, who professed to me, at least, to have no idea what was in the final version voted on on the floor of the House and the Senate.

This is a travesty on the General Assembly's legacy.

Re: Stam gives session mixed grades

Prospero — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:56:50 -0400

Perhaps they will judge him as unwilling to take a symbolic vote on an unconstitutional "feel good bill" egregious of Free Speech.

Do you really want to imply that everyone else present supported that bill out of a feeling of indignation, that making a stupid thing equal to a Class H Felony, equal to strangulation, out of a sense of its being The Right Thing To Do, or was it because they were unwilling to take the political heat for not doing something?

Is burning an American Flag not just as intimidating, like yelling fire in a crowded theater?

The Supreme Court didn't think it constituted either a Clear and Present Danger or even a Compelling State Interest, and ruled that rare practice here in the United States to be protected Free Speech.

I suspect they would similarly rule the same to any challenge to this silly bill. If being stupid becomes a crime, they’d have to arrest three forths of the people communting down I-40 every morning.

And it was a silly bill, especially in light of what a handful of powerful men refused to give a hearing, or a debate, despite the fact that they were supported by vast numbers of North Carolinians and would also pass overwhelmingly.

To give this dumb, useless bill a hearing, that gives over to symbols a power greater than they deserve or would have done otherwise, is probably unenforceable and invites a devise, unnecessary constitutional challenge, was ridiculous.

At least he voted. Six Members apparently took a walk.

Re: Stam gives session mixed grades

persondem — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:55:15 -0400

I wonder how voters will grade Stam's vote on S685. On Thursday, the NC House overwhelmingly passed the bill by a vote of 113-1. S685 makes displaying a noose, burning a cross, or wearing a hood or disguise for racial intimidation more serious crimes.

Stam was the one vote in opposition.

Re: Oh no, Scharrison

Isaac136 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:22:07 -0400

Reread ya nut! Try to breathe slowly and re-read the post.

Re: Oh no, Scharrison

FFC1304 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:13:22 -0400

but yet you fail to agree about the ORIGINAL PARTY OF SLAVERY, dont you?

YOU are the ENEMY as a democrackkk!

Re: Oh no, Scharrison

Isaac136 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:46:16 -0400

Yes, FCC. It is true that the Democrats of yore have a lot to answer for. Of course, today, which is something you and I can actually do something about, it is the GOP that bears the mantle of shame. I don't envy you your struggle to hold your head up, ya poor ole dear.

Re: Oh no, Scharrison

FFC1304 — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:53:15 -0400

By now, you DO realize that democrats ARE the ORIGINAL 'party' of SLAVERY, right? STRIVE to be SMARTER than a NC democrackkk!

Re: Bob Dole to speak outside legislature

scharrison — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:30:57 -0400

Ooohhh. Right, right. Sorry. :)

Oh no, Scharrison

Isaac136 — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:50:18 -0400

You musn't wake up FCC. The orderlies to their best to keep him quiet and calm, and here you go setting the boy off.

When you've been reading FCC as long as some of us have, you realize that he's actually making horrific, hacking sounds when he spells out all those "K"s he likes to insert in the word "democrat" and its variants.

In fact, at a recent GOP gathering, Mike Huckabee heard FCC doing that "kkk" thing and tried to perform the heimlich maneuver on him.

Re: Bob Dole to speak outside legislature

scharrison — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:14:19 -0400

I may not be smart, but I can smell a rat from quite a distance. ;)

Americans For Prosperity is funded in a large part by Koch Industries, a huge multi-billion-dollar oil and gas conglomerate with the biggest pipeline network in the country. They've been ripping off taxpayers and business partners for years, leaking petrochemicals all over the place thanks to a complete lack of concern for citizens' health, and now they're gonna help the good citizens of North Carolina Take Back Our State.

The only thing I find more worrisome than corporate faux citizens' organizations like this is how many people actually believe in them.