重庆的“最牛钉子户”扎出了官商勾结的黑血

这颗“钉子”，在无意之中，扎出的是官商勾结的黑血。

这句说得太好了，顶！！

]]

坚决支持强制拆迁。   法律一知半解最可怕

原帖由 fengxiang 于 2007-3-26 15:23 发表
坚决支持强制拆迁。   法律一知半解最可怕

明天就把你家房子 拆了

如果没有政府出面规划拆迁，只有脑壳被门板夹过的开发商才会自己去开发。

原帖由 请你喝茶1 于 2007-3-26 16:20 发表

明天就把你家房子 拆了

欢迎拆迁，换套大点的

我家住的房子没有电梯的老式8层楼的5楼，爬得累，欢迎拆迁，换套大的带电梯的，剩下的补偿个意思就很好啦！;P

原帖由 重庆人 于 2007-3-26 16:24 发表
如果没有政府出面规划拆迁，只有脑壳被门板夹过的开发商才会自己去开发。

在支持钉子户人的眼里，开发商就是脑壳被门板夹过的。

有些村是自己卖地，自己负责拆自己房。

物权法有关拆迁的条文，与现行法律相比，只多了一个拆迁是住宅的要保障居住条件，其它基本就是照搬了，也就是说，物权法只在补偿方面有一点改变，其它照旧。物权法是保证国家的拆迁的权力的，所以拿物权法来说拆迁非法，根本就是笑话。

　　欢迎原创，请排版。

可惜了这钉子户没生在美国。

原帖由 红色帝国 于 2007-3-26 17:52 发表
可惜了这钉子户没生在美国。

声明 以下为转帖 转自联合早报




有些人总喜欢那国外说事。本人在北美生活了多年，可谓深有体会。第一：私有产权是法律授予的，不能超越法律。无论现行法律有什么不合理之处，在它被修改之前必须要执行。不服可以上诉，但一经法院裁决就没有商量的余地。任何藐视法律的行为必将受到严厉制裁。不久前美国法院裁决饿死夏沃而让她的前夫拿走巨额资产，很多人坚决反对，但所有违抗法院裁决的人都被逮捕。在西方法院的裁决是铁的，无论你认为对错都要执行，不然社会就乱套了。第二，西方强调私有财产，有它好的一面也有它的负面之处。宣扬私有化与极端个人利益的最终结果不是保护弱势群体而是产生有钱人的特权。在强调公共利益的社会里，有权的人会有一定的特权。而在彻底私有化的金钱社会里，拥有特权的是那些有钱人。权力在众目睽睽之下是有可能受到监督的，而富豪的特权在金钱社会里则难以受到监督和限制。辛普森如果不是富豪决不会逃脱法律的制裁，赖昌星如果没有钱也不会在加拿大拖到现在。人们大概忘了卡特里纳飓风过后显露出来的美国社会的另一面，但人们大概不会忘记中国历史上土地兼并的后果。拿国外说事，或者按照国外的论调说事，来挑动并激化矛盾，让人民怀疑政府，公民藐视法律，穷人仇恨富人，这对谁都没有益处。

原帖由 红色帝国 于 2007-3-26 17:52 发表
可惜了这钉子户没生在美国。

我昨天不是转了一贴有关美国的强制拆迁么？
我不介意再转一次～:D

Justices Affirm Property Seizures
5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; A01



The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

The court should not "second-guess" local governments, Stevens added, noting that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."

Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from 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."

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."

In addition to its national repercussions, the court's decision removed a possible obstacle to the District's plans to build a baseball stadium along the Anacostia River waterfront and to redevelop the Skyland Shopping Center in Southeast -- a project Williams said could generate 300 jobs and $3.3 million in tax revenue.

A number of property owners in those areas had hoped the court ruling would help them resist the city's exercise of eminent domain. But David A. Fuss, an attorney for several of them, acknowledged that the court's ruling "is going to have a major impact."

The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.

New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people.

But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the city's plan, so the homeowners, represented by lawyers from the libertarian Institute for Justice, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to the institute, the New London plan, which the City Council approved in 2000, is typical of "eminent domain abuse," which has spawned more than 10,000 threatened or filed condemnations involving a transfer of property from one private party to another in 41 states between 1998 and 2002.

Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the institute, said that the only recourse for property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain would be to sue in state court based on the property rights provisions of each state's constitution.

New London City Manager Richard M. Brown said he was "very pleased" by the court's decision. He said the city hopes to restart its redevelopment plan, which has lost money so far, partly because of the litigation.

In the disputed neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, most residents sold out and their homes were demolished. The site is now a flat expanse of dusty, rock-strewn soil dotted by the few remaining houses. Signs advertising the development site are withered and torn; builders who once considered projects have moved on, deterred by the controversy.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case.

He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

"Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects," he wrote.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.

Staff writer Kirstin Downey contributed to this report.

资料来源：
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp ... 05062300783_pf.html

原帖由 waka 于 2007-3-26 17:58 发表



声明 以下为转帖 转自联合早报




有些人总喜欢那国外说事。本人在北美生活了多年，可谓深有体会。第一：私有产权是法律授予的，不能超越法律。无论现行法律有什么不合理之处，在它被修改之前必须要 ...

LS的，你那个不够强，我这个是E文的，更有说服力～:P

原帖由 alvin-evans-lee 于 2007-3-26 18:10 发表


我昨天不是转了一贴有关美国的强制拆迁么？
我不介意再转一次～:D

Justices Affirm Property Seizures
5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development

By Charles Lane
Washington Post ...

上面所指的美国和在地球另1面的美国没有任何关系的,这个美国其实是理想国度的代名词.和古代西方胜传的遍地黄金的东方香料国是一样的.

原帖由 彩色滑翔机 于 2007-3-26 18:28 发表


上面所指的美国和在地球另1面的美国没有任何关系的,这个美国其实是理想国度的代名词.和古代西方胜传的遍地黄金的东方香料国是一样的.

是这样啊。

我这个人笨，联想不到那么远。建议他以后就直接说“乌托邦”好了，省得我动脑筋～～:D

“谁影响我发展一阵子，我就影响他一辈子”
——————一句话冷冰冰，但是我看到的是国家、民族渺茫的未来，哭、痛苦呀

您的眼光真nb，您帮我看看下个星期的彩票是多少号码行么？55开，要不，73开，您拿7，我拿3？

原帖由 大汉血泪 于 2007-3-26 19:08 发表
“谁影响我发展一阵子，我就影响他一辈子”
——————一句话冷冰冰，但是我看到的是国家、民族渺茫的未来，哭、痛苦呀

说这句话的人现在牢饭吃的正香呢。
      赶快移民吧，中国太危险了。

原帖由 dxq-330 于 2007-3-26 16:45 发表

在支持钉子户人的眼里，开发商就是脑壳被门板夹过的。

你恰恰说反了！

而湖南嘉禾事件并不是独立发生的一件案子，这不是第一件也不是最后一件，就算有人为此在吃牢饭，但还是后继有人。