Thursday, November 03, 2005

The Baseball Stadium And Eminent Domain

According to this Washington Post article, "D.C. Seizes 16 Owners' Property For Stadium: Move Gives Tenants 90 Days to Vacate," the District of Columbia has invoked eminent domain in order to seize private property for the construction and operation of a publicly owned baseball stadium:
"The District government filed court papers yesterday to seize $84 million worth of property from 16 owners in Southeast, giving them 90 days to leave and make way for a baseball stadium.

"By invoking eminent domain, city officials said last week, they hope to keep construction of the Washington Nationals' ballpark on schedule to open in March 2008. The city exercised its 'quick take' authority, in which it takes immediate control of the titles to the properties...."
The area for this proposed baseball-stadium complex is Anacostia, synonymous with drug dealers, a high crime rate, and unrelenting poverty. No doubt a baseball stadium would improve the area and, most important to the D.C. government, would substantially increase tax revenues. But many of those who live in Anacostia are longtime residents; some are home owners, some are rental tenants, some are small-business owners. Where are they going to go? Housing and retail space in most of the Metro area is outrageously expensive. Furthermore, disenfranchising these residents will result in further breakup of their sense of community, as did Great Society projects of the 1960's.

I know the Anacostia area from some first-hand contact. From the 1950's through the 1970's, my father worked at D.C. Transit's Southeast Garage. I watched the area deteriorate until it finally reached the point where most of us hesitated even to drive through that section of our nation's capital, despite the fact that the route through Anacostia provided a shortcut to the National Mall. In fact, my father took early retirement in part because the problems with vehicle theft in Anacostia had resulted in his vehicle's theft in September, 1970, even though Dad's beat-up 1958 Chevy had been chained to a tree; the theft insurance on the car didn't pay much, and Dad had to buy another vehicle just to go back and forth to work.

Just two years ago during a microburst rainstorm, my husband's truck had two flat tires on the route through Anacostia, and I again got an up-close look when I drove there to deliver the needed tools and a second spare tire. Not pretty! We had to fend off crack dealers and small-time criminals as we tried to get the tires changed; one fellow brought us a tire--which he bragged that he had just boosted from another stranded vehicle. The police drove by on patrols, but stayed in their patrol units; businesses--including garages which might have helped us with the untenable situation we were in--closed and locked down because the power was out. Tow-truck companies we phoned turned down our requests for picking up my husband's truck. If not for my cousin's car club, we might have had to abandon the truck! Needless to say, after that bad several hours broken at the side of the road, we have never tried to cut through Anacostia again. (For more information on Anacostia, click here)

Returning now to the article,
"In all, 23 property owners control 14 acres at the stadium site near South Capitol Street and the Navy Yard along the Anacostia River.

"City officials said they have agreed to buy land from seven owners, who were not named in the court filing. The city had offered them a total of $13 million, but it is not known whether that was the final sale price.

"The other 16 property owners have not agreed to sell, and their holdings include some of the largest and most expensive properties: an asphalt plant, a trash transfer station and adult-oriented businesses."
Among the properties now is question is that owned by Trans-Waste, which has hired legal representation:
"...M. Roy Goldberg, an attorney for Eastern Trans-Waste, the trash transfer station that the city valued at $8.7 million, said yesterday that the company intends to fight.

"The company's owners have told the city their property is worth $14.3 million, plus $18 million if they cannot find another site.

"'We're going to fight the amount of the taking and the way they've gone about doing it,' Goldberg said. 'I don't think they've been negotiating in good faith since Day One.'"
The city doesn't have to negotiate in good faith, especially since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision.

As of now, the $84 million dollars sits in a court-monitored trust. Those of us who live in the D.C. area tend to snicker at the phrase "court-monitored trust," as funds are forever inexplicably disappearing from various city-affiliated accounts.

According to the article,
"Property owners have 20 days to challenge the constitutionality of the takeover. As long as the District can show that the land was taken for a legitimate public purpose, the court probably will have no objections, land-use lawyers said.

"Some activists have argued that the stadium is a private project for Major League Baseball, but District leaders say the $535 million project will create significant tax revenue. Developers have snatched up land just outside the stadium plot in anticipation of a waterfront revival, and the city is planning to create a 'ballpark district' featuring restaurants and retail.

"If the court does not block the city's action, property owners can continue to negotiate with the city, but in lieu of an agreement, a jury would ultimately decide the sale prices. But that could happen months, even years, after the owners are forced to leave, land-use lawyers said."
Are the property owners in Anacostia getting a fair price? Is being forced to leave within such a short period of time, without having more extensive due process, truly Constitutional? Since the Kelo decision, apparently what's happening is perfectly legal.

Again, according to the article,
"The city's offers for the land are about 2 1/2 times as high as the amounts that it had assessed the properties to be worth for tax purposes last year. But some owners said they want more money because owners of property just outside the stadium land have received higher offers from developers.

"Patricia Ghiglino, who owns an art studio assessed by the city at $1.7 million, said yesterday that she is meeting with city officials Nov. 14 to discuss the offer. She said she has hired an appraiser to conduct an independent analysis of how much money her property is worth.

"'I don't know if the city will want to avoid litigation and just come up clean,' Ghiglino said. 'But if they decide they don't want to agree with our appraiser, then I guess I don't have too much recourse' but to let the court decide.

"Ghiglino, who has been in her property 15 years, said she felt strange that the city now controls the title to her land.

"'I've cried so many days since this first came up' last year, she said. 'It was very, very personal to me. We created the center. I worked 60 to 90 hours a week here, on Saturdays and Sundays. This became not just a business but also my home. . . . At end, this just becomes a business issue. I have to look for ways that are best for me personally. But we will continue the center regardless of where we go. That's our mission.'"
Ms. Ghiglino may have some options, but others do not. I keep thinking about the individuals, both business owners and residents, who are losing their properties. Where are these people going to go? Assessments from a year ago aren't valid now, in my opinion, as property values through the Metro area have skyrocketed since that time. Furthermore, I think about this matter on a personal level. Were I to be offered two and one-half times my last assessment, I would find it impossible to replace my modest 1940 home in the hot real-estate market of Northern Virginia because homes with the same small amount of square footage are simply unavailable; thus I'd be forced into trying to purchase a home at least $500,000 more.

Another thought keeps running through my mind. If these 16 had sold to developers, would the city still be seizing the properties? At the same dollar figure? In a more recent article from the Washington Post, the headline "Stadium Cutbacks Considered" appears:

"The rising price of construction materials has significantly increased the projected cost of the District's baseball stadium complex, prompting officials to begin discussing what to eliminate from the project, city leaders said yesterday.

"Officials declined to say how much more the $535 million project would cost under their most recent analysis, which was conducted by the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission. But they said potential cutbacks could come from features inside or outside the ballpark, such as reducing the size of concourses, suites and other amenities or moving parking above ground and reducing the number of retail stores at the site.

"'We'll have to reduce some things and not be able to do a Cadillac stadium, but we could do a Buick or a Ford,' D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) said at the council's monthly legislative meeting.

"Her warning came shortly before the council voted 10 to 2 to give preliminary approval to three technical amendments to the stadium financing package, which relies heavily on public money.

"The amendments, which deal with tax issues, were sought by city financial officials who said Wall Street bond raters would not grant the project an investment-grade rating unless the changes are made. Such a rating would give the city a lower interest rate and reduce its payments.

"A final vote on the amendments is scheduled for Dec. 6. City financial officials said they need to issue bonds before the end of the year to secure the funds to begin construction....

"[T]he federal government owns a small parcel on the stadium site and that a congressional committee is considering legislation that would sell the plot to the District for 'fair market value.' That could add an unexpected $11 million to the city's tab, Catania said.

"But a spokesman for the House Committee on Government Reform, headed by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), said that committee is considering drafting legislation that would give the District the land for free."
So, an act of Congress can hand over $11 million dollars' worth of land, but the owners of private property must take a lower offer? Just how did a baseball park become this important?

According to Leon Trotsky (The Revolution Betrayed, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1937, 76),
"Where there is no private ownership, individuals can be bent to the will of the state, under threat of starvation."
(Hat tip to Felis , who regularly contributes to this site, for the above quotation from Trotsky)

Note: For information about H.R.4128, the new Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, click here. You can contact your Congressional Representative here.

44 Comments:

At 11/03/2005 6:33 AM, Blogger samwich said...

A publicly owned stadium for a privately owned team.
Well lemme see here, the Seattle Chickenhawks football team here a few years back was leaving town. The sportsfan faithful badgered Microsoft Billionare Paul Allen into buying the team to keep them here. Allen agreed contingent upon a public stadium for his team.
The taxpayers anteed up. The stadium is publicly owned and pays no property taxes. It costs the city money to police it. It brings NO new revenue in. It just shuffles existing revenue around.
It does creat a few jobs for parking, vending, tickets and security.
BUT SEATTLE DOES NOT MAKE ANY REAL PROFIT FROM THE STADIUM YET. It cost $450 million. Allen leases the stadium at a rate that will take 30 years to pay the building costs.

Like the old worn out unprofitable eyesore Kingdome, when a new project invades Seattle before the stadium is paid for, the stadium will be demolished and the taxpayers will fund another lo$er.

S

 
At 11/03/2005 9:34 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

There have been plenty of instances where communities have totally abused "eminent domain" and forced out longtime owners to put in hotels or condos or something else that builds up the tax base. Judging from what you said about the area around the proposed ballpark it seems that this might be a legitimate use of the law. I was down in Atlanta when they built the new stadium for the 1996 Olympics and they also used "eminent domain" to secure property rights. It is a double-edged sword and the average property owner is most likely going to lose. How do you put a price on a piece of property where someone has lived for 30 years? This is one area of government that if it is used judicially it will benefit the community but if it is used just to put more dollars in the tax base it is definitely wrong. This probably sounds like I'm trying to walk on a very narrow line...which is pretty much the truth.

 
At 11/03/2005 9:44 AM, Blogger George Mason said...

The last clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the part allowing "eminent domain," escaped the awareness of our Founders for the danger it posed. It provided for government property "takings" for "public use" and with "just compensation." That implied due process prior to the takings. Next to condoning slavery, this provision of the Fifth Amendment has proved to be one of the most serious of fatal flaws in the Constitution, but it did not start showing up as such until the latter 19th century when people discovered that this clause could be used as a license to steal, with the Supreme Court issuing that license.

It was not until the latter 20th century that the next big shift, or as the Democrats say, the next big "nuance" occurred. The Supreme Court began reinterpreting "public use" to mean "public purpose." All hell started breaking loose. Bigger and better property stealing set in bigger than the Oklahoma Land Grab.

It was inevitable that the liberal wing of the Court would take the next step, which they did 23 June 2005, with the Kelo vs The City of New London, Ct. decision. With Kelo, the Court allowed "good intentions" to justify governmental condemnation and seizure of private property for any use, private or public.

With Kelo, the Court told Americans that their right to property, one of the four cardinal Rights of Man, stood abrograted for all time. That means that the right to property stands legally violated and violatable throughout America on the basis of some whim by someone or some group. Since rights may not be taken away, given away, or delegated because they are "inalienable," they can only be violated, i.e., abrogated.

Here come the marinas, the ball parks,and anything by which any individual or group can get the ear of some governmental body to exercise the authority of the State for the takings. It will get much worse. Government, whether SmallTown, USA, or the feds, is the legal concentration of force, origianlly delegated by the citizenry. Now, these legal concentrations of force can run amok. NOTHING ANYONE OWNS CAN BE SAFE FROM SEIZURE ANY MORE.

Put another way, the abrogation of the right to property means the abrogation of the other three cardinal Rights of Man. Why is this? It is so because the right to property is the sanction of actions to the material means of supporting and furthering one's life as a human. Without property, the right to liberty stands severely endangered, as does the right to life itself. Without the right to life, the liberty to take the requisite actions to support that life, and the right to the material means on behalf of one's right to life, well, the right to the pursuit of happiness stands fully thwarted.

We must get this decision reversed by SCOTUS and legislation at all levels of government passed to prevent eminent domain seizures. Since this cause is the lynch-pin for the protection and restoration of the Consitutional protection of all of our basic rights, it is one if not THE most important cause in America right now.

I am very glad to see Always on Watch bringing this issue to the attention of readers. We too are working on it and plan to launch an open-ended series about the war of the Supreme Court on Americans and America.

Thanks,

George Mason
Sixth Column

 
At 11/03/2005 10:05 AM, Blogger Cubed © said...

Always,

Three cheers and a big "Thank you" for this post; it appears that we will now have to add New Orleans to our list of governments seizing private property (no surprise there, eh?).

On the news last night, the Honorable Mayor Negin announced that hundreds of private homes, all terribly damaged or destroyed by Katrina, should be seized, rebuilt at government expense to house workers in the rebuilding effort, and after five years, the original owners could move back in (no mention of under what conditions--after payment for repairs? Free?).

This would be his vision of an alternative to having all that property sitting idle for years.

That is so dumb; if there is a good use for the property, you can bet your boopie that private parties, from potential home-owners to businesses, will see it. In a free society, the appropriate way to transfer ownership is for such private parties to approach the current owners and make them an offer.

For the lady who was interviewed and did not like Negin's proposal, such an offer might or might not be attractive, depending on the amount of the offer, and for others, who didn't want to stay, it would be a godsend to help them start anew elsewhere.

Folks, take a look at the Bill of Rights; it's just about time to have a funeral procession for it.

We are in as much danger from within as we are from without, from border problems to the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

I have a Christmas ornament that I got at a trip to Mt. Vernon a few years ago; it's a tiny copy of the Constitution in gold. It would appear that the whole idea of a constitutional republic is receding to the status of "ornament" without real meaning.

 
At 11/03/2005 10:26 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

The baseball stadium scam is coming around again. Not surprising, after all The Dear Leader himself worked this scam for a bundle back in Texas. Even got some additional taxes passed to pay for lining his pocket.

So the good folks of Anacostia are being displaced by capital and AOW, always seeing commies, starts quoting Trotsky as if it makes much difference if the power is state or capital. You loose either way.

Well, if anyone remembers the destruction of the communities of Chavez Ravine it might be time for review. The buildings were going to be replaced with a planned community and the residents probably would have stayed. Not ideal, but not a rape of the community. That idea was struck down as "communist" and they built a ball park instead. Ry Cooder did the soundtrack for a documentary on the story. Pick up his soundtrack, one of The Mighty Ry's best recordings.

So I'll just sit back and remeber the West End of Boston where my grandfather raised seven kids and look at the ugly high rise "luxury" apartments that replaced that neighborhood. They just kicked all the renters out and paid of the owners...it was ugly. Maybe we remembered and that's why they couldn't cram a new Fenway Park down our throats at public expense.

What I find hilarious is the far right wing christo-fascist neocon zombie brigades idea that this taking is something new. But they have never been thought of as strong historians.

 
At 11/03/2005 10:56 AM, Blogger Gindy said...

I can't imagine what it must be like to be told that the government is now taking your property away from you. Plus you have only 90 days to move out and find a new home at an affordable price.

 
At 11/03/2005 2:03 PM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

What I personally find most interesting is how the lefties will paint this as something that Bush did, or that "greedy Republicans" did?

I know Duck will, but he is institutionally stupid most of the time.

Is Washington's local govn't controlled by the "D" or the "R"?

Are the "rich" or the "poor" getting screwed?

Remember, this isnt about personal profit Duck, it is about a governement profiting in tax revenues... which almost always smells of your side of the isle.

 
At 11/03/2005 3:25 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

g, I notice you were waiting for me to post over at Social Sense.

mustang, the coward, banned me.

There isn't much point in setting him straight however. The man thinks Kerry is opposed to the war. I have no idea where he's been for the last 5 years.

Myself, I think it's great that as a nation we think that replacing Hussein with Chalabi is worth anything more than two warm farts in hell, but Americans never were worldly wiae.

 
At 11/03/2005 3:28 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

g, the stadium isn't for personal profit? Are you delirious?

Are the Senators publically owned?

Let's review:

Profits go to capital

expenses go to workers.

Now since you are probably at the public trough collecting a check with mustang and Big Bubba you might not be aware that real wages are down more than 3% since Chimperella took office. This stadium deal is hardly the worst screwing working people are getting.

 
At 11/03/2005 5:27 PM, Anonymous Felis said...

AOW,
What a great and methodical post.
I think The US citizens must fight very hard to reverse the Kelo decision - it is absolutely crucial.
Private property is the most powerful defense system against any attempt in introducing totalitarian systems.

 
At 11/03/2005 5:57 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Remove the Capitol building....replace it with some new condos and save the taxpayers billions...proper use of eminent domain.

 
At 11/03/2005 8:17 PM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

AOW's dead on track again and she's right about Anacostia. What a slag heap of filth. I used to be stationed at the DC Navy Yard and had to go through that area.

Good idea for the stadium; hopefully they will clear the riff-raff out of there once and for all!

 
At 11/03/2005 8:36 PM, Blogger samwich said...

Hi AOW, Off subject, This just in from one of my expensive forecasting services:

New Orleans borrowed short term money just before the hurricane to keep it's schools open a few more weeks.

Nagin lucked out with a hurricane to blame New Orleans' Bankruptcy on. Now how is the bankruptcy proceeding going to affect New Orleans' assets that were pledged for collateral for the loans???

$

 
At 11/03/2005 9:12 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Great post, AOW!!! How horrible for people. Felis is right... Kelo must be overturned.

 
At 11/03/2005 10:15 PM, Blogger LASunsett said...

AOW,

I was talking to a retired law professor today and he was appalled by the Kelo decision. He said roads, schools, and things like that were very different things when the eminent domain tag was placed on them, at its inception.

But to open up shops, restaurants, and retail after kicking people out of their homes, was entirely another thing.

His specialty?

Property law.

 
At 11/04/2005 5:57 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...

I wish someone would takev on the absurdity of group rights and social justice. Only by protecting individual rights do we remain free.

 
At 11/04/2005 6:35 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
Only by protecting individual rights do we remain free.

That concept seems to be lost on many these days, yet it is the basis of most amendments to our Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.

It's come to this: We can't see the trees for the forest. Yes, a lame twist on the old adage, but I think it fits. Anacostia is a pit, as Bassizzzt says, but cleaning it up at the cost of individuals' rights is a violation of the intention of our Constitution, Kelo notwithstanding. And the reality is the Anacostia got much worse after the projects went in--I watched it happen. A black friend of mine told me the other night that the rent in the projects was prohibitive and that "the riff-raff" then took over as the core citizens of the community had to relocate; I suspect this fellow knows what he's speaking of as he's been in this area all his life (some 51 years).

Of course, some would see my home as a pit to clean up. Should the government be allowed to take it from me? Certainly tearing down this house and putting up a McMansion would bring in much, much more tax revenue. But this property has been in my family since 1947. As the last member of this branch of my family, I should have the right to dispose of it, or not, as I see fit.

 
At 11/04/2005 6:49 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I hope I don't have to do this again:
at the public trough collecting a check with mustang and Big Bubba
Isn't Bubba a disabled veteran? I wouldn't call that trough-feeding. As for Mustang, he is not at the public trough, so you're wrong there.

mustang, the coward, banned me
My friend is not a coward, but you did piss him off with your acerbic comments and some ad-hominem attacks--Mustang's blog, Mustang's call.

There isn't much point in setting him straight however. The man thinks Kerry is opposed to the war. I have no idea where he's been for the last 5 years.
Really??? Kerry did first support the war, then politics and an election campaign came along. Also Kerry isn't what I'd call an advocate of military intervention as evidenced by what he did after his brief service in Vietnam.

Please see my next comment.

 
At 11/04/2005 6:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

TO ALL COMMENTERS:
Let's not get into making snide comments about or harping on commenters who are not posting. This site isn't intended for commenting on others' blogs, others' blog policies, or--most particularly--for ad hominem attacks.

Let's stick to commenting on the article at hand and to exchanging ideas with one another, and not sink to what amounts to venting personal irks or to gossiping. Of course, dialogue, especially reasoned debate, between commenters posting to a blog article here is the purpose of the comments section. Thanks.

And please take this comment in the spirit in which it is offered.

 
At 11/04/2005 7:01 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Amendment for Beamish,
Just to clarify...

You are most welcome to make your pointed comments! You stick to the commenters at hand.

 
At 11/04/2005 12:51 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Esther,
If I were given 20 days to get out of my home, where someone in my family has been living since 1947, I'd have to rent a dumpster. I could fill it up, in a heartbeat.

Overturning Kelo is going to be very difficult. Once SCOTUS rules, the rulings have a way of standing. However, individual locales, and states too, can enact protective laws. The District rejoiced in the SCOTUS decision because the ruling gave them the legal pass needed to get this ballpark.

I cannot stress enough that many of us who own homes are in jeopardy. Now, Anacostia is a mess--no argument there. But very few residences bring in the same tax revenues as businesses do, and this baseball park is a business.

 
At 11/04/2005 12:52 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
You said, New Orleans borrowed short term money just before the hurricane to keep it's schools open a few more weeks.
I hadn't heard that one!

 
At 11/04/2005 12:55 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
The stadium is publicly owned and pays no property taxes. It costs the city money to police it. It brings NO new revenue in. It just shuffles existing revenue around.
It does creat a few jobs for parking, vending, tickets and security.
BUT SEATTLE DOES NOT MAKE ANY REAL PROFIT FROM THE STADIUM YET. It cost $450 million.


I see the same problem might happen here, notwithstanding D.C.'s reassurances and efforts to establish a business community around the stadium. And the drug dealers and drug users aren't going to go very far away, either.

Furthermore, with each new day, we keep hearing more about the rising costs of building the complex.

 
At 11/04/2005 1:00 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
There have been plenty of instances where communities have totally abused "eminent domain" and forced out longtime owners to put in hotels or condos or something else that builds up the tax base. Judging from what you said about the area around the proposed ballpark it seems that this might be a legitimate use of the law.

The District didn't feel free to invoke eminent domain, however, until the Kelo decision, and that timing tells me something--something which I don't like. I think the line is being crossed. Furthermore, for decades, Anacostia has presented an ugly problem, and the crack "wars" made it even worse; the police turned a blind eye, and Marion Barry bought crack there. Does he still?

 
At 11/04/2005 1:02 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

George Mason,
An excellent explication--as usual. Property rights, individual rights, and the right to liberty are indeed all tied together. Thank you for stopping by.

 
At 11/04/2005 1:03 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Are the Senators publically owned?

I'm sure that you meant the Nationals.

And MLB is still objecting that the complex isn't luxurious enough.

 
At 11/04/2005 1:05 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Felis,
Private property is the most powerful defense system against any attempt in introducing totalitarian systems.

I've read your biography. You would know!

 
At 11/04/2005 1:06 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Gindy,
The idea of affordable price in the D.C. area is nearly extinct. McMansions everywhere!

 
At 11/04/2005 1:08 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Cubed,
Folks, take a look at the Bill of Rights; it's just about time to have a funeral procession for it.

We are in as much danger from within as we are from without, from border problems to the destruction of the Bill of Rights.


No doubt in my mind. I hope not to live to see the final degeneration.

 
At 11/04/2005 1:10 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

G,
Remember, this isnt about personal profit Duck, it is about a governement profiting in tax revenues

What power--the power to seize all our properties!

 
At 11/04/2005 1:13 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

LA,
was talking to a retired law professor today and he was appalled by the Kelo decision. He said roads, schools, and things like that were very different things when the eminent domain tag was placed on them, at its inception.

But to open up shops, restaurants, and retail after kicking people out of their homes, was entirely another thing.


Yes, what's happening in Anacostia is not in keeping with the original intent--and so says my liberal real-estate agent. Maybe she fears that her commissions will evaporate?

 
At 11/04/2005 1:14 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Bassizzzt,
Stay out of Anacostia, if you know what's good for you--especially after dark falls!

 
At 11/04/2005 2:06 PM, Blogger samwich said...

Hi AOW, the New Orleans borrowing was a bit paragraph in one of the financial forecasts I subscribe to.
This particular company forecast the stock market drop in 2000 about a year before it began. They forecast the DOW's high at 11750 and DOW got to within 1/3 of 1% of target. They forecast the amount of drop each leg down and the greates miss was 3%. They are forecasting another crash soon, the next leg down in the cycle. It will not be a long drawn out noodling like the last four years.
It will be a drop, sharp correction and drop further. Soon enough the DOW will be in the 6000 range and lower, the S&P around 700 or lower and the NAZ less than 1000.
I pay these folks good money because I get good information.

S

 
At 11/04/2005 2:11 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Samwich,
Not the time to buy regular stocks, then?

 
At 11/04/2005 2:57 PM, Blogger samwich said...

Hi AOW, actulally this time is a very good time to short the DOW, NAZ or S&P and buy it back after the drop.

$

 
At 11/04/2005 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AOW,
Oh, and thanks for linking to my post. :-)

 
At 11/04/2005 6:18 PM, Anonymous Felis said...

Sorry, It was Felis not "anonymouse"

 
At 11/05/2005 10:14 AM, Anonymous elmers brother said...

This happened in Oakland recently where a man who owned a business for 56 years..56 YEARS..family run..the government stole his property and gave it to a private developer to build...guess what.....condos and apartments!

Unbelievable.

 
At 11/05/2005 8:40 PM, Anonymous elmers brother said...

here is that story.

 
At 11/05/2005 8:48 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Elmer's Brother,
Yes, Oakland is seizing one business and giving the property to another business, if I read the story correctly. In America? Doesn't seem possible, but it is happening.

Thanks for the link!

 
At 11/06/2005 10:13 AM, Blogger Cubed © said...

Beakerkin says "Only by protecting individual rights do we remain free."

So, so right. But how many people do you know who understand what a "right" is and who can define it?

Most people think of a "right" as some sort of entitlement to something they need or want, or as a sort of government "permission slip."

It's the lack of knowledge of just what a "right" is that makes so many constitions and other documents around the world so inimical to rights.

We have to do something to teach kids this sort of thing, or the Postmodernists and their bedfellow, Islam, will have their way with us!

I apologise, but lately I've been ranting and nagging about this issue.

ARGH!

 
At 11/06/2005 10:18 AM, Blogger Cubed © said...

Samwich,

But at least the stadium is PRETTY... You mean you object to the fact that the citizens voted it down, and then the government found a way to invalidate the decision by the voters and installed it anyway?

Samwich, you aren't being very MUTUAL today!

 
At 11/09/2005 6:41 PM, Blogger samwich said...

cubed,
I personally don't care about the stadium financing. I am no fan of baseball, football, basketball, golf, tennis, or any past time requiring a spherical object that does not have a data base in my exterior ballistics charts.

Nor am I any fan of wasting any of my time in Seattle, a 26 mile drive.

Want some real fun???

www.jpw.com

Google Skykomish River, Boulder Drop and Flaming Gorge Canyon.

S

 
At 11/11/2005 3:46 PM, Blogger samwich said...

Correction, www.jpwinc.com
S

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home