Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dems route to gun control/confiscation according to Pelosi
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SoonerP226" data-source="post: 3205522" data-attributes="member: 26737"><p>Having been on the landowner's side of a proposed taking of private property, I can tell you that a lot of it depends on how you're approached. The proposed deal (it ended up falling through) with which I was involved involved many landowners and meetings at city hall, so I got to hear from a bunch of them. Many were approached in a reasonable manner by skilled negotiators, but more than a few of the landowners were approached with threats of condemnation. I can tell you that if you approached me saying "here's some money for your land, so either take it or we'll use eminent domain to steal it," I'd make it as painful and costly for you as I possibly could, money be damned, and I doubt that the landowners on the border are any different. </p><p></p><p>Now, all that said, I agree with Glocktogo: if there's not already an easement at the borders, there needs to be one. I detest there being an easement on my property line for access to the parcel behind mine, but I also recognize that the dude needs access to his property, and that there has to be an easement on the frontage for the road. There are just some things that you have to allow if you're going to live in a society.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SoonerP226, post: 3205522, member: 26737"] Having been on the landowner's side of a proposed taking of private property, I can tell you that a lot of it depends on how you're approached. The proposed deal (it ended up falling through) with which I was involved involved many landowners and meetings at city hall, so I got to hear from a bunch of them. Many were approached in a reasonable manner by skilled negotiators, but more than a few of the landowners were approached with threats of condemnation. I can tell you that if you approached me saying "here's some money for your land, so either take it or we'll use eminent domain to steal it," I'd make it as painful and costly for you as I possibly could, money be damned, and I doubt that the landowners on the border are any different. Now, all that said, I agree with Glocktogo: if there's not already an easement at the borders, there needs to be one. I detest there being an easement on my property line for access to the parcel behind mine, but I also recognize that the dude needs access to his property, and that there has to be an easement on the frontage for the road. There are just some things that you have to allow if you're going to live in a society. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dems route to gun control/confiscation according to Pelosi
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom