In what way? I thought it means that cities, etc., can use eminent domain to forcibly buy property and hand it over to private concerns. (We're about to have that used in DC!)
Fred ,'Smile Time'
Spike's Bitches 24: I'm Very Seldom Naughty.
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
smacks forehead
Damn, sorry, meant to say - Billytea, contact her, man! She sounds human!
WE GOT PAID!!!
Yay!
Yay for Fay pay!
WE GOT PAID!!!
Right the frell on! So excessively glad to hear he's only 99% asshole, not the full 100.
Fay pay is A-OK!
Yay, Fay pay!
Hooray for the Pay that goes to Fay on this Pay Day!
in other news: WE GOT PAID!!!
Well, good! One less thing to worry about. I hope he comes through with the travel dosh, too.
In other news, I read a little bit about the whole Scientology thing this morning and ever since I've been going around the offices (ok, just around my manager's office--so far) saying, "Space clams. Dude. Space clams." Luckily (or, perhaps, disturbingly) no one seems to see this as strange for me.
ETA: My manager just leaned in the door, made clam motions with his hands, and left. I may never leave this job.
In what way? I thought it means that cities, etc., can use eminent domain to forcibly buy property and hand it over to private concerns. (We're about to have that used in DC!)
By way of the what the decision allows. From the link you posted: Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
Tax revenue and economic benefits from non taxed entities can be looked at as pretty much zero. So, my church on the prime spot of lakefront real estate in my town--wouldn't that land better serve the community's economic interests as a hotel or restaurant?