eminent domain to seize and restructure mortgages

[jodywy]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/16/obama-administration-raises-red-flags-on-donors-mortgage-initiative/?mod=WSJBlog

 

[Steve]

the eminent-domain gambit is being advocated by Steven Gluckstern, chairman of Mortgage Resolution Partners, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm that has been the guiding force behind three California municipalities that are considering the approach.

Mr. Gluckstern, an entrepreneur and former insurance executive, took an early role as a major fundraiser for Mr. Obama during the 2008 election,

taking one's property, (the debt) would require a fair reimbursement.. one that would in many cases lead to the mortgage corporation losing money..

that would be a touchy court issue.. even for the liberal courts who have often sided with government and businesses over the people on eminent domain ..

so I wouldn't expect Obama to touch this until after the election when he has more flexibility..

 

[Tam]

the eminent-domain gambit is being advocated by Steven Gluckstern, chairman of Mortgage Resolution Partners, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm that has been the guiding force behind three California municipalities that are considering the approach.

Mr. Gluckstern, an entrepreneur and former insurance executive, took an early role as a major fundraiser for Mr. Obama during the 2008 election,

taking one's property, (the debt) would require a fair reimbursement.. one that would in many cases lead to the mortgage corporation losing money..

that would be a touchy court issue.. even for the liberal courts who have often sided with government and businesses over the people on eminent domain ..

so I wouldn't expect Obama to touch this until after the election when he has more flexibility..

I'm betting when Obama will speak up about this totally depends on just how MAJOR of a fundraiser Gluckstern is. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Tuesday, July 17th 2012
Latest North Dakota news, sports, business and entertainment
SUPREME COURT-BUSINESS SUBSIDIES

Foes of ND business subsidies ponder next move

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Critics of taxpayer backing for North Dakota businesses say they're considering new ideas to try to stop what they call business welfare.

The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in two recent cases that the state and local governments can provide taxpayer support for private development.

The rulings came in lawsuits against the cities of Bismarck and Minot, Minot's economic development corporation and the North Dakota Commerce Department.

Brett Narloch of the North Dakota Policy Council opposes the business subsidies. He says the court rulings went against the constitution's ordinary language. The constitution says taxpayer support of private business isn't allowed unless it helps the poor.

He says an initiative campaign for a constitutional amendment is possible, or an effort in the Legislature to restrict taxpayer subsidies for business.

When private business's refuse to step forward to fund major area development (appearing to rather be a Romney type spend it in China/India folk)- its up to even the down home/common sense/conservative folks of the area to gather behind government to put up the funding... Kind of the reason civilized areas- camps- towns- cities originally came to be....

 

[hypocritexposer]

Tuesday, July 17th 2012
Latest North Dakota news, sports, business and entertainment
SUPREME COURT-BUSINESS SUBSIDIES

Foes of ND business subsidies ponder next move

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Critics of taxpayer backing for North Dakota businesses say they're considering new ideas to try to stop what they call business welfare.

The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in two recent cases that the state and local governments can provide taxpayer support for private development.

The rulings came in lawsuits against the cities of Bismarck and Minot, Minot's economic development corporation and the North Dakota Commerce Department.

Brett Narloch of the North Dakota Policy Council opposes the business subsidies. He says the court rulings went against the constitution's ordinary language. The constitution says taxpayer support of private business isn't allowed unless it helps the poor.

He says an initiative campaign for a constitutional amendment is possible, or an effort in the Legislature to restrict taxpayer subsidies for business.

When private business's refuse to step forward to fund major area development (appearing to rather be a Romney type spend it in China/India folk)- its up to even the conservative folks of the area to gather behind government to put up the funding... Kind of the reason civilized areas- camps- towns- cities originally came to be....

and in the next breath, I bet you tell us taxes paid, are not enough to pay for such infrastructure, while Canada has lower taxes for corporations and better infrastructure. :lol:


You are a "tax, and spend more than we take in, type of Liberal, OT