Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think everyone who wants to should be able to buy a small plot. Even better lease it because in that case the government as the owner can still determine what happens to the land.
I think everyone should be able to support themselves and their dependents without getting any public assistance. Doesn't happen.
If that were true, it would have happened by now. The biggest obstacle is the prohibitively high costs the public would have to incur when so many County, State, and Federal (National Parks) Public Beaches already exist.
Yes, they are. It would become like all other public beach/park property. All maintenance, liability insurance, etc., would become the government's responsibility.
The costs to buy out the easements could be raised by special high taxes on beach front property. It is a lack of creativity on the part of the local govt. So yes the costs would be high to buy it but the muni could just tax you more, using your money to buy your own land from you.
When people get creative then you will see just how tenuous your position and wealth really is. Money is just a medium of exchange and your "ownership" of that land is dependant upon your ability to keep it.
The govt does not have liability insurnace, if they get sued it comes out of your pocket in the form of taxes.
For someone with the means to buy beach front property and send kids to MIT and cal tech you should know this. The USA is moving towards socialism and community land trusts etc. Most peoples little single family homes in the culdasack wont be targets but vilas on nice white sand beaches and giant "no tresspassing" signs with antagonistic tennants will be a target. Its like the rich puke who tries to kick everyone off of a popular recreational lake because he bought up all the land .... guess what, its a matter of time before someone forces easements.
I think everyone should be able to support themselves and their dependents without getting any public assistance. Doesn't happen.
Of course it doesnt happen because companies have been given rights as "people", anti trust is no longer enforced and corporate strategy aims to commoditize human beings. We no longer have a free market where there are NUMEROUS competitors on equal footing where people can sell their labor and companies have to compete for said labor.
Now companies can form mega conglomerates force out everyone else and then you have maybe 3-4 places you can work for, these 3-4 places set the wages, conduct mass lay offs when its convient for share holders and the people have no recourse but to seek out welfare assistance. All progressive taxation on companies has been removed which compelled reinvestment and hiring.
Companies are now enabled to dominate a market place while simultaneously operating on a skeleton crew, off shoring work or automating. They can keep production output high without the need for hiring many people.
I think everyone should be able to support themselves and their dependents without getting any public assistance. Doesn't happen.
I don't assume those Indian land areas have any substance. It seems that all of California is covered by such an area, but do Indians have any power in California? It is mostly whites that decide everything.
I don't share your expectation, whose only goal is to get rid of responsibility for those who can't make it on their own. Our world is run by overachievers, no wonder more and more people fail in it.
The costs to buy out the easements could be raised by special high taxes on beach front property.
Did you realize what you just said? You want to charge a special assessment to beach front property owners to raise the funding to buy easements from them. That's a zero sum deal for those property owners. It would never happen. They have to be compensated for their land.
Quote:
It is a lack of creativity on the part of the local govt. So yes the costs would be high to buy it but the muni could just tax you more, using your money to buy your own land from you.
That would be struck down as unConstitutional, violations of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Quote:
The govt does not have liability insurnace, if they get sued it comes out of your pocket in the form of taxes.
The point being EVERYONE pays, not just me and/or my insurance. It wouldn't solely be my liability anymore. I would be indemnified.
Quote:
For someone with the means to buy beach front property and send kids to MIT and cal tech you should know this. The USA is moving towards socialism and community land trusts etc.
It's possible some people may voluntarily choose to associate and move in that direction, and it is their right to do so. But while we still have a Constitution, any government entity must pay just compensation for private property taken for public use. That includes taking any private property to institute a "community land trust."
Quote:
Most peoples little single family homes in the culdasack wont be targets but vilas on nice white sand beaches and giant "no tresspassing" signs with antagonistic tennants will be a target. Its like the rich puke who tries to kick everyone off of a popular recreational lake because he bought up all the land .... guess what, its a matter of time before someone forces easements.
There is no public use easement on my property or any of my neighbors' properties, and that's the point.
As to your lake example, all navigable waterways in the U.S. are held in public trust and can be used by the public. They just can't trespass on private property to get there. Additionally, this would be a perfect use of a voluntary "community land trust." Get a group of people together to donate/raise enough funding to buy a non-landlocked parcel of lakefront property to be held by the "community land trust" and use that for public access.
Of course it doesnt happen because companies have been given rights as "people", anti trust is no longer enforced and corporate strategy aims to commoditize human beings. We no longer have a free market where there are NUMEROUS competitors on equal footing where people can sell their labor and companies have to compete for said labor.
Now companies can form mega conglomerates force out everyone else and then you have maybe 3-4 places you can work for, these 3-4 places set the wages, conduct mass lay offs when its convient for share holders and the people have no recourse but to seek out welfare assistance. All progressive taxation on companies has been removed which compelled reinvestment and hiring.
Heh heh... You're describing the potential evils of your own "community land trust." It's nothing if not a mega conglomerate.
Anyone doubt the fact that our own Fed Gov is a mega conglomerate which is supposed to act in the public's best interests but does not?
I don't assume those Indian land areas have any substance. It seems that all of California is covered by such an area, but do Indians have any power in California? It is mostly whites that decide everything.
That's California's problem, no? Perhaps you should ask all the west coast lefty elites why they've usurped land stolen from Natives? And it's not just California. It's the well-populated areas all up and down the west coast including Oregon and Washington.
Quote:
I don't share your expectation, whose only goal is to get rid of responsibility for those who can't make it on their own. Our world is run by overachievers, no wonder more and more people fail in it.
It's not someone else's fault when one fails. The victim mentality never empowered anyone. It just makes them think they can't succeed.
Did you realize what you just said? You want to charge a special assessment to beach front property owners to raise the funding to buy easements from them. That's a zero sum deal for those property owners. It would never happen. They have to be compensated for their land.
That would be struck down as unConstitutional, violations of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The point being EVERYONE pays, not just me and/or my insurance. It wouldn't solely be my liability anymore. I would be indemnified.
It's possible some people may voluntarily choose to associate and move in that direction, and it is their right to do so. But while we still have a Constitution, any government entity must pay just compensation for private property taken for public use. That includes taking any private property to institute a "community land trust."
There is no public use easement on my property or any of my neighbors' properties, and that's the point.
As to your lake example, all navigable waterways in the U.S. are held in public trust and can be used by the public. They just can't trespass on private property to get there. Additionally, this would be a perfect use of a voluntary "community land trust." Get a group of people together to donate/raise enough funding to buy a parcel of lakefront property to be held by the "community land trust" and use that for public access.
Charging different property taxes for different classes of property is not unconstitutional. The 5th ammendment has nothing to do with local property taxes what so ever. The state would compensate you for the easements with your tax money. The constitution does not protect you from property special use property taxes, where I live there are all sorts of different property classes taxed at different rates, no one is going to the federal supreme court.
The 14th ammendment just makes sure that if the state rather than the feds take it they still have to pay you, nothing about property taxes. You will be paid for the easements and you will not be responsible for said easements and it will be paid disproportinatly out of your pocket if the legislators had any creativity.
The whole point of socialism is to address the inequatliy, the only way to do that is to compel people to do things they dont like or dont want to do, such as slowly stripping special use private property into public trust. Voluntary is ideal but if that fails it will be done by force.
I bring up the example of the lake because it happened in my state, there was a lake that was EXTREMELY popular for recreating. Well the rich wanted it as their own private play ground and wanted all the riff raff out, so they bought up all the land and pretty soon the state found there were not easements so the rich effectivly choked out and public use of the lake (other than float planes), the state used eminite domain to buy out an easement as there were no voluntary parcels, the goal of the rich in that case was to completely restrict access. Well it didnt work, the state focibly took the land, I think they even paid less than market since the rich had strategically worked to cut off access.
Heh heh... You're describing the potential evils of your own "community land trust." It's nothing if not a mega conglomerate.
Anyone doubt the fact that our own Fed Gov is a mega conglomerate which is supposed to act in the public's best interests but does not?
Land trusts dont employ people so its not really an issue and I would rather have this stuff done at a state level but certian things like the economy have to be done at a federal level as the feds are the only ones that can enact forign tarrifs to discourage off shoring, a state cant really do that. Once the forign threats are tempered then the rest can be deligated to the states. If a bunch of idiots in the south want to be exploited by a company and try to under cut their neighbors with more favorable taxes or "right to work" laws then so be it I suppose, of course the other state can slap on a sales tax of said goods from that company to torpedo their sales.
The whole idea is to do what is in the best interests of the people and not corporations and monied interests.
That's California's problem, no? Perhaps you should ask all the west coast lefty elites why they've usurped land stolen from Natives? And it's not just California. It's the well-populated areas all up and down the west coast including Oregon and Washington.
It's not someone else's fault when one fails. The victim mentality never empowered anyone. It just makes them think they can't succeed.
I agree, that is why I have formed relationships with my legislators and craft white papers and encourage people to not vote for monied interests. One day I may run for office because I think I would be good at it.
I think more and more people are realizing that "capitalism", as it exists today is not in their best interests, people are starting to see that they have to work more and are more indebt than generations before us, less choice of employers, lower wages and on and on.
If the rich have become so vile that they just cant resist exploiting people I am not against the use of the barrel of a gun to compel certain behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
