eminent domain-good or bad

[Joliet's Green Onions]

SC decision occured (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html)

[Knight0440]

wow that's fucked. personally im not a fan.

[Drunkenmaster]

American liberty was dealt another huge blow today. So much for private property rights. Thank you to justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer (the liberal wing of our Supreme Court, mind you) for once again proving that you do not know how to interpret our constitution and that you are all unfit to serve as justices in our nation's highest court.

[Six Ways]

W


T


F


!!!!!!!!!


Who thought this up? What were they thinking when they did? Why did they ever even consider it? What The Fuck???? Seriously! How can THAT get voted in? That's like saying 'the state can requisition your liver at any time of your life' or something!

:wtf:

[Kinbote]

Thank god for these guys:

http://www.ij.org/

[vordabois]

I apologize for this post being so long, but CNN was piss-poor at presenting this story with both sides' input, and there is important relevent background information they neglected to mention.


This case was an exceptional one, so obviously, that is why it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. As with many decisions, this is an extreme that prompted the courts to truly wonder if things are fair for those in the city (or, the city itself).

The city of New London was so economically depressed that it was labeled a "distressed municipality" by a state governmental agency in 1990. And from there, things only got worse. The US Undersea Warfare Center -- which employed 1,500 people -- shut down in 1996. In 1998, the unemployment rate skyrocketed to twice the state's figure. The population shrunk to 24,000... the lowest point since 1920. Beyond that, things have grown even more desperate lately because a few major military-related facilities operate and employ tons of people there. And some -- if not, all -- are being targeted for closure as part of Bush's plan to cut our defense spending and reduce the deficit.

(Various figures are cited in the official decision located here (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf) It's a lengthy read, but there are also citations to past decisions that are pretty interesting.)

If you've ever lived in a truly depressed town, you might know how much of a tragedy it is. Unemployment leads to low incomes which leads to low tax intakes which means shitty roads, crime, and -- worst of all for those who have kids -- an impoverished and generally ineffective (and ill-reputed) school system. That alone really cripples the future for them. (My grandpa [ran as a republican :-p ] was a mayor of such a town. Somehow he got the city council to back reconstruction of their water system. He worked diligently trying to get the council on board with his plan as proposed a few years back. The funds are limited and only certain projects can be undertaken because the area is so damn poor. Trying to attract wealth and industry to a town that depressed is like trying to take a cannon out with spitwads.)

Anyways, New London residents soon started to grow very concerned for the vitality of their town and succeeded in getting the state to issue a $5.35 million bond to a non-profit organization called New London Development Corporation for revitalization. They managed to attract Pfizer to the area for a new $300 million research center which was to inevitably stem the economic decline of the city. (God how my grandpa would have loved a break like that... How Pomeroy [the city] would have loved a break like that!) Additionally, several projects were planned that essentially centered around that research center:

- A waterfront conference hotel
- A small "urban village" that included restaurants and shopping and marinas for both commercial and recreational uses
- A "riverwalk" that originated there and connected the areas of development along the coast
- On another parcel, 80 new urban residences with a walkway leading to the waterfront developments
- Space for the new U.S. Coast Guard Museum


Other specifics, in the Pfizer deal, they agreed to:

- make large parts of their parcel into parking or retail for the nearby state park
- [very possibly] integrate it somehow with the nearby marina (unsure of that plan's specifics)
- designate space for 90,000 square feet of research offices not specifically for Pfizer (but would inevitably be filled -- and quickly -- being so close to Pfizer and all.)


New London was headed towards being a much more wealthy town with a new-found role as some kind of drug research haven. Smaller companies and other related industry from all over the nation were expected to join in, following Pfizer.

So, essentially what we are talking about here is that the people of the city were overwhlemingly supportive of the plan, but these few people refused to leave, compensation (which was -- and is -- considerable) or not.

They were outraged that their town was going to have to pass on a break for total rejuvenation that they had been hoping for for decades because a few people refused to move.

[vordabois]

The meat of the debate is rooted in the interpretation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The issue is... What constitutes "public use"?

From a Christian Science Monitor article written back in February 2005 (When the issue was first brought before the court) :

The most common and accepted public use of private property occurs when the government takes land for government facilities like a public highway, public school, or military base. Public use also includes the taking of property for privately owned businesses such as railroads, power companies, and other firms that need contiguous land to offer regulated services to the public. Public-use takings have also occurred to eliminate urban blight.

But the New London case implicates the most controversial application of the public-use rationale.

Lawyers for the city of New London say it is up to elected representatives to decide land use and economic development issues. Judges must show deference to the sometimes tough economic decisions made by legislative and municipal officials, they say.

State supreme courts are divided on the issue. Eight state supreme courts have ruled that private economic development does not amount to a public use and have barred condemnations in such cases. They are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, South Carolina, and Washington.

Six state high courts have ruled that private economic development projects are a public use. Those states are Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, and Connecticut.

In March 2004, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the New London project was a public use because it promises to bring higher tax revenues and jobs to the economically depressed city. The state high court offered an expansive reading of the term: Public use can mean "public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit."

Daniel Krisch of Hartford is a member of New London's legal team. He says in the debate over the project, the benefits of economic development have often been overshadowed by the plight of targeted homeowners.

"It is a more sympathetic story to talk about the homeowner who gets their home taken, but people don't as often talk about the people who get jobs because of the [development] project that goes forward, or the better schools, or city services that are created because of the increased tax revenues," he says.

The stipulations are enumerated in the official decision I posted a link to above. Careful planning has gone into this particular case to ensure that the project isn't spearheaded by one private organization.

Still, the fear remains that the most opportunistic corporations and other private entities could eventually litigate their way into perverting the implications of this decision for their own ends... $$

[Divine]

when i was living in orlando, this happened to quite a few people so they could expand 1-4 - i thought it was totally shitty but it happened. i've heard it happen again, but i don't remember who it was. it was a friend of my mothers or something and i also think it was in orlando. the thing is though, they gave them money to relocate though, but it wasn't near enough to even buy a new house (most of the people had lived their for years, it wasn't far from where i grew up so i knew the neighborhood) - i remember it being somewhere arounf $35,000 and that's not enough to buy SHIT it orlando anymore. maybe in the bad side of town, but this wasn't a bad part of town, but it was slowly becoming one of the worst. i hadn't lived in that area since iwas about 10, but still, it sucks.

[ferret]

determining what is best for public use, needs public debate. when u are impoverished, taking ur house doesnt make ur neighborhood better. im sure there are tons of abandoned buildings that can be torn down and fixed.
its a power trip, no ones personal property ever be invaded. and im a boderline socialist.
thats just fucked up

[vordabois]

Originally posted by ferret
determining what is best for public use, needs public debate. when u are impoverished, taking ur house doesnt make ur neighborhood better. im sure there are tons of abandoned buildings that can be torn down and fixed.
its a power trip, no ones personal property ever be invaded. and im a boderline socialist.
thats just fucked up

I remember when I was a kid, they were talking about making another outerbelt around Columbus because the current outerbelt -- I-270 -- is now well-within most of the suburban development in the northern part of the city. One of the routes proposed for the outerbelt was to run only about 1,500 ft. from our property. It was, as you might guess, a very hotly contested issue. It was eventually determined that building up the current outerbelt to four lanes on each side would be sufficient. But for a while there, we were operating under the assumption that our property values would be plummeting within five years.

When you're faced with something like that face-to-face, you are forced to deal with it. You have no real power over what society wishes to do.

You may interpret that as some power-trip (because you've never been there... you've not had to really weigh the pros or cons), but that notion is swept out the window once contemplated. The fact is that if it were a power trip, it would be one person or a few people making the proposals. It would be only a few people making the judgement, only a few people doing the demolition.

Well... It's not. It's society.

In these cases, if you think their only motivation is for "power", and you base that on some kind of baseless logic like "Oh, there MUST be other buildings they can tear down", you are willfilly ignoring the reality of the situation.

[Kinbote]

This whole issue is a lot easier when you believe that property rights are absolute.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by UncleLester
This whole issue is a lot easier when you believe that property rights are absolute.

Yes, it would be nice if it were that simple. However, the 5th Amendment was worded as it was for a reason.

[ferret]

the tax my house... i believe thats all they should be able to do with it
and fix it of course

[vordabois]

Originally posted by ferret
the tax my house... i believe thats all they should be able to do with it
and fix it of course

In all fairness, I do believe that these things need fought tooth-and-nail to assure that what you speak of never becomes a reality... Power-tripped-out "socialistic" totalitarians gaining control of our government to aid their own ends.

But the absolutes are not spelled out for a reason as well. A healthy debate is needed, and while I really feel sorry for these people and hope as few people are affected as possible, sometimes things like this are an unfortunate necessity.

Conversely, another [less-likely] highway project was becoming public knowledge after the outerbelt one... the much-hyped I-73 that was to run from Michigan to Florida. That was supposed to be in about the same place as the outerbelt (in relation to our house... only to the west, across a cornfield), and it would have taken out my best [childhood] friend's house. He would have had to move... and probably so far away that I would need to be able to drive to get to his house. As a child, it was a passionate issue for me because we lived in the country and there weren't too many people around... And no one my age was nearby. It's hard for a child to understand why this stuff has to happen, but I learned to accept it, and luckily it was ultimately defeated and largely forgotten. They decided to route it through another area on top of an existing state highway, and then it was finally laid to rest when I-71 was widened (currently ongoing).

I was learning about eminent domain as a freaking ten-year old and I grappled with the idea... It seemed so wrong. And it can indeed be. But it happens, and sometimes it's necessary.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by vordabois
Yes, it would be nice if it were that simple. However, the 5th Amendment was worded as it was for a reason.

Yes, so the jackbooted thugs can kick down my door as they see fit.

I could give a rat's ass about "public interest," "public good" - if somebody owns something, it's theirs, and for it to be taken is theft, no matter who does it, or to what end it's done.

If anybody would like to give me money so I can purchase my own island, or construct one, please feel free.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by UncleLester
Yes, so the jackbooted thugs can kick down my door as they see fit.

I could give a rat's ass about "public interest," "public good" - if somebody owns something, it's theirs, and for it to be taken is theft, no matter who does it, or to what end it's done.

If anybody would like to give me money so I can purchase my own island, or construct one, please feel free.

I understand where you're coming from, and to an extent, I feel the same way. One of the coolest notions I've gotten was when I took a thousand-island cruise in Lake Huron... I saw that people bought a whole private island and built their house(s) on them... Their only real connection to society was represented by mostly shoddy docks on each one where their own small boat was tied up. Ever since I saw that, I woke up to that whole idea and I've been fascinated. Damn, man, if you wanna get away from it all, island, right there, no power lines, no roads, no sidewalks, nothing but me and my little landmass. If I ever earn enough money, I fully intend to spend my retirement living on my own island up there. It's one of my dreams.

But I feel as though I can believe that buying someone's property by giving them the money the market determines the property is worth... that's a necessary evil in some cases.

If eminent domain didn't exist, would we have interstates or even highways and roads? Electricity? Railroads? Do you propose that our nation would have lifted out of the third world had we not utilized the Takings Clause?

Keep in mind... It's not just about the properties that are bought out, either. When you're talking real estate, as I alluded to earlier, if someone down the road decides to sell his property to some private developer who plans to develop trade routes and the like, your property's value is going to fall because of the increased noise/air pollution and traffic. So whether you like it or not, external influences on your property are inevitable even if the government happens to be involved or not.

However, with the government, it is bound (by the Constitution) to give people fair compensation for the properties before construction. This is no easy thing for nearby property owners to accept because those whose properties need to be demolished for the new project were given values significantly higher than what nearby owners are later forced to accept after construction is complete.

Anyways... rambled a little, but the main point is that (I think) in order for a society to develop into what we define today as modern and competitive, individuals are inevitably going to have to make concessions. As few as possible, of course, but a few.

[Kinbote]

"Fair value" doesn't exist if the seller doesn't wish to sell.

And yes, I think we'd have gotten along well enough without sanctioned theft. Provided the government remained out of the way. The invisible hand of the marketplace ensures that what needs doing gets done.

I made no mention of external factors affecting value: I'm talking only of the essential fact of ownership.

I don't like the Constitution all that much anyway. Or democracy.

And I look forward to brawling and anarchic space colonies.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Elephant Man
i remember it being somewhere arounf $35,000 and that's not enough to buy SHIT it orlando anymore
Everglades holdout picks up $4 million check
Wednesday, July 6, 2005; Posted: 9:44 a.m. EDT (13:44 GMT)

NAPLES, Florida (AP) -- A man who fought the government for years to keep his home in the rural Everglades has reluctantly picked up his $4.18 million settlement check.

Jesse Hardy said he doesn't know where he'll go after his Dec. 1 deadline to move. "I'm just trying to enjoy every minute I can of what I have left out there," he said.

The 69-year-old former Navy SEAL lives in a clapboard home he built on 160-acre property with no electricity or infrastructure about 40 miles east of Naples.

State officials went to court to take the land using eminent domain, saying the property sits in the path of an $8.4 billion Everglades restoration. Construction crews are scheduled to start filling in canals and tearing apart roads on Hardy's land in 2006.

Hardy had rejected repeated offers to sell, saying that he wanted to hold onto a dying rural lifestyle and pass it on to the 9-year-old boy he has raised on the land with the boy's mother.

He picked up his check last week.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/06/everglades.holdout.ap/index.html

[Drunkenmaster]

Thank God many states are passing laws against the taking of land for economic development.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-02-eminent-domain_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

[Squirrel]

During the 40's, the U.S. government grabbed a load of farm land and William S. Burrough's old school using eminent domain and turned them into the military facilities that produced the Manhattan Project. Just in case anyone was worried that they'd use their powers for evil.... :ok:

[Squirrel]

Originally posted by UncleLester
And I look forward to brawling and anarchic space colonies.

Me too. I hope I live to see them, but I probably won't 'cause no-one seems to care about space any more. Don't these shuttles keep crashing and falling apart 'cause they're still using the ones they had in the 70's and stuff?

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Squirrel
Me too. I hope I live to see them, but I probably won't 'cause no-one seems to care about space any more. Don't these shuttles keep crashing and falling apart 'cause they're still using the ones they had in the 70's and stuff?

(Manned space exploration is my strong suit. :-p )

The Space Transportation System (the shuttle program) was conceived in the 60s, launched in 1972 and drawn up in the late 70s. the first fully-operational shuttle WAS Columbia, launched on April 12th, 1981. Challenger was the next (April 4th, 1983), then Discovery (August 30th, 1984), then Atlantis (October 3, 1985). Four shuttles were planned and built. (Later, Endeavour [May 7th, 1992] was built to replace Challenger.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Shuttle_profiles.jpg

On January 28th, 1986, as most Americans my age or older saw, Challenger eploded in a fireball over Cape Canaveral. That was only five years after the first shuttle flight.

The trouble was determined to be the O-ring on one of the solid rocket boosters. A flame came out and licked the side of the external tank. This caused the volatile liquid hydrogen inside to ignite, which caused the bottom strut connecting the booster to the external tank to come loose, and it turned toward the tank, poking a massive hole in the top of the tank (which contained liquid oxygen). So, liquid oxygen + liquid hydrogen + flames = BOOM. (Incidently, the crew compartment remained intact, and they determined the occupants were still alive when it hit the water, unconscious. It was the force of the impact with the water that killed them.)

The shuttles were designed to operate for 100 flights each, but unfortunately, that dream never came to fruition. They thought we'd be seeing more than 25 launches a year for private companies, which was supposed to cover the cost. The costs spiraled out of control once it became operational because they realized that the amount of money each launch took was just astronomical and they never got enough business to streamline the process.

The computing power of the first shuttle as it was originally built can be compared to the normal computing power of today's PCs, remarkably.

However, it must be noted that the computing power of the 6 Apollo lunar landers that landed on the moon could be compared to the normal computing power of the average automobile manufactured today.

The bulk of the computing is done on the ground, so saying that their computing systems are obsolete is not especially valid. Furthermore, the shuttles were recently overhauled in a program to drastically extend their life span. Atlantis, for example, one of the three shuttles that were light enough to be able to reach the International Space Station, was fitted with touch screens, believe it or not. (Typically, though, Atlantis, being the lightest of the four existing orbiters, was the one that flew almost all of the classified military missions.) In any event, I never learned how much their computer systems were upgraded, but you can guess that it was substantial (given today's technology).

Columbia broke up because of more problems with that damn external tank. All of the shuttles are absolutely covered in ceramic tile to make the shuttle get through re-entry. Previously, the heat sheilds on the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules melted away and couldn't be reused. The shuttle's ceramic tiles make it so the whole heat shield isn't gone. NASA engineers spend weeks fitting new tiles in place of damaged ones in between the launches.

But unfortunately, the liquid oxygen and hydrogen in the fuel tank is so cold that they produce water condensation on the outside that is ice. These ice sheets break off and also make the foam that surrounds the tank itself brittle. Even in the old Saturn V launches, this effect can be seen. Look closely at the Apollo 4 test, and Apollos 10, 14 and 17:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Saturn_V_launches.jpg

Obviously, NASA's almost eliminated the problem for the shuttle (considering the quantity of debris falling), but only almost.

So one of these chunks of ice or brittle hardened foam hit the tiles on one of the wings and knocked some loose. This, of course, caused superheated gas to enter into the relatively fragile inner parts upon re-entry and melted the entire wing away. Then, well, those people tragically lost their lives.

It's not about AGE, it's about the theory, the system. They need to devise a system like the ESA had planned with their dropped Hermes program.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Hermes_launch.jpg

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Drunkenmaster
Thank God many states are passing laws against the taking of land for economic development.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-02-eminent-domain_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Hey, that's good news indeed.

The states need to adhere to their law. The Supreme Court case was decided on the notion that the states weren't overstepping their bounds if their laws were written to allow it.

[Drunkenmaster]

Originally posted by vordabois
The Supreme Court case was decided on the notion that the states weren't overstepping their bounds if their laws were written to allow it. Not exactly. Eminent domain ever so clearly violates the 5th Amendment which states that government can only seize property for a "public use" which has always been bridges, highways, etc... not Wal-Mart or housing developments.

[Drunkenmaster]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Drunkenmaster
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

And if you recall, I wrote:

Originally posted by vordabois
Still, the fear remains that the most opportunistic corporations and other private entities could eventually litigate their way into perverting the implications of this decision for their own ends... $$

;)

Originally posted by Drunkenmaster
Not exactly. Eminent domain ever so clearly violates the 5th Amendment which states that government can only seize property for a "public use" which has always been bridges, highways, etc... not Wal-Mart or housing developments.

Eminent domain pertains to public use, correct.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the classification of "public use" can only be determined by the people of that state through legislation.

There is an undefined gray area there whether you or I like it or not.

Private property HAS been taken by the government to give to private entities all throughout our history. A LOT of property has. The distinction between "public" and "private" is up for interpretation... it is certainly not as clear-cut as it may seem to be.

Electrical lines. Railroads. Canals... Just a few examples.

So, considering that some states have laws that are open-ended and others do not, the Supreme Court only stated that because some of these state legislatures have these open-ended laws on the books, they can't just rule against them given the "gray area" that varies from state to state.

THAT was what the ruling was all about.

Now, it seems as though so many people want to take this decision as a setback in property rights, but really, it has seemed to only given them motivation to change their legislation to explicitly disallow it and close all the loopholes. (As evidenced by that article.)

[Kinbote]

Space is more interesting than the Supreme Court. Let's go back to that, please.

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION, TAKE YOUR PICK

1. Isn't it distressing somewhat to think that, had NASA balls and will, we could've had a manned mission to Mars twenty years ago and lord knows what now? Unfortunately they just had nonvisionary hacks who had no idea how to make use of post-Apollo goodwill.

2. Here's hoping the moon remains out of the hands of governments but does end up divided amongst private individuals.

3. Won't that Earth-like planet-finding and picture-taking satellite thingee be neat, when it's where it's supposed to be and doing what it's supposed to do?

4. Isn't the International Space Station a lame and halfassed project?

5. Won't some billionaire with balls do something big and drastic and get shit jump-started? There're no reasons that vacations at L5 and lunar retirement can't be had WELL within my lifetime. Let's just get the fuck on it, for fuck's sake.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by UncleLester
Space is more interesting than the Supreme Court. Let's go back to that, please.

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION, TAKE YOUR PICK

1. Isn't it distressing somewhat to think that, had NASA balls and will, we could've had a manned mission to Mars twenty years ago and lord knows what now? Unfortunately they just had nonvisionary hacks who had no idea how to make use of post-Apollo goodwill.

That's not really true, you know. I mean, the part about post-Apollo goodwill. They originally planned to launch Apollo 18, Apollo 19 and Apollo 20, but in about 1972, people started to see the whole thing as a waste of money. Many, many people were excited at the beginning and then America just started to lose interest. We won the Space Race... USSR got the first artificial satellite into space, the first animal into space, the first human into space, the first human to achieve orbit, the first multi-person crew, the first woman into space, the first spacewalk, the first space station... And then we shitted on the commies when we pulled ahead, Apollo 11 landed. And to a lot of people, to defeat the commies was the motivating factor.

So the deed was done, and ~poof~ overwhelming national support was gone.

2. Here's hoping the moon remains out of the hands of governments but does end up divided amongst private individuals.

I wish it were profitable enough for the private sector... But it's not. Remember, Antarctica isn't owned by any government, either.

3. Won't that Earth-like planet-finding and picture-taking satellite thingee be neat, when it's where it's supposed to be and doing what it's supposed to do?

YES!

There are other space telescopes planned as well.

Take a gander at what's coming up in the next few years...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/future_missions.cfm

Also, it doesn't list it, but there's a cheap little probe planned for Pluto, too.

4. Isn't the International Space Station a lame and halfassed project?

Meh, great idea, but mainly because it's just our first step. NASA typically highlights the scientific value of it or the fact that nations are building it together, but it's also been discussing using a space station for assembling and supplying a mission to Mars. We have to have experience in keeping people healthy in weightlessness for a long, long time in order to accomplish a Mars trip as well.

[Kinbote]

It's not profitable YET. I suspect it can be made profitable once the costs of getting there become less prohibitive, which shouldn't - or perhaps I should say needn't - be too far off. Somebody ought to cover the light surface with solar panels and microwave the energy back down here. Also, tourism. (Meanwhile, were someone to stake an Antarctic claim, how likely do you think it would be for governments to tolerate it - how likely to adhere to their lack of sovereignity?)

I say it was squandered: we got to the moon...and then we went back, and diddled around, and some zany astronaut played golf. Someone with ambition and big plans and shit ought to have spun things in the immediate aftermath of 11.

I also wish Project Orion had been carried out.

[Squirrel]

Originally posted by UncleLester
I also wish Project Orion had been carried out.

I'd never heard of this so I looked it up, and apparently it had a lot of problems with violating the International test-ban treaty, but it evolved into a fusion project called "Daedelus" in the 70's, and then more recently into an antimatter propulsion project called "Project Ican (http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/)", so I guess it's still going on, just in a different guise.

It does sound pretty cool though. I read that Orion was initially designed to propel a ship with a mass of up to 8 million tons at 10% of light speed, and apparently if antimatter works, it could reach up to 50-80% of light speed. So it could get to Alpha centauri in a little over 5 years. :O

[Kinbote]

It's likely it would have been done, despite the treaty (or around the treaty), but NASA was focused on the Apollo program, and the Air Force was either unwilling or unable to carry on Orion itself.

What's nice about Orion, and not its followers, is that we could build it NOW - could've built it "now" for a while. It doesn't depend on a technological breakthrough. Mars in a couple of days? Why not!

[Squirrel]

Carl Sagan suggested that it would be an excellent alternative use for our nuclear stockpiles. :yes:

[Kinbote]

Have you ever noticed that Hillary Clinton resembles Carl Sagan wearing an ugly wig?

[Drunkenmaster]

This is disguting. Not only did they take these peoples' homes to put up restaraunts and shops and crap like that to pretty up the area around the new Pfiser building, but now they want to charge the former landowners back rent for the time that they remained in their homes while they appealed the decision. This is horrid.

http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Drunkenmaster
This is disguting. Not only did they take these peoples' homes to put up restaraunts and shops and crap like that to pretty up the area around the new Pfiser building, but now they want to charge the former landowners back rent for the time that they remained in their homes while they appealed the decision. This is horrid.

http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

Yeah, that is pretty repulsive.

That's one of those laws that should have allowed leeway for people who are contesting it.

In any eminent domain law, those who are fighting it should be given protection until it is officially decided. That's how we can assure abuses don't occur, and they're penalizing them for it? Ugh...