Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can Somebody Explain The "Lottery" Thing?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:28 AM
Original message
Can Somebody Explain The "Lottery" Thing?
Don't people already own these houses and this land? What the hell was THAT about? HOMESTEADING? WTF? I missed the speach and am trying to make sense of the transcript...sure looks like a lot of nonsense to me!

You know their big excuse for not building with renewable energy is always the cost of replacing exisitng infrastructure, so let's have it -- solar powered buildings, biodeisel stations, the works! What is their excuse to NOT be environmentally responsible this time I wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. SOMEONE owns the houses & land
it is likely not the tenants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. and people who did own their older homes free and clear
have technically "abandoned" them by 'leaving them'..so eminent domain will kick in to "salvage" property ..and put it to a "better use".:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Completely untrue.
You don't "abandon" a property by complying with a mandatory evacuation...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Legally, yes...but eminent domain will rear its ugly head here
I would bet my life on it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Except for parcels near the levees needed to expand them, you're on.
I'll take that bet.

Too many eyes are on the process for them to start seizing private land without damn good cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Pretty soon, we will all have careened into the "next" disaster
or returned to paying attention to the war.. The public attention span is very short.. the press will soon tire of the New orleans story, and deals will be made out of camera-range..

This will take YEARS...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Agreed, but this is something that people will keep with them a long time.
Even when attention shifts, I don't believe he's going to be able to start seizing private property.

Especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling, it's a hot-button issue and I don't think it's going to go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Republicans do not want poor people returning
so a limited number of 'non-astronomically' priced housing units may be built..(not enough for all who previously lived there)..and of course the most toxic land will be undesireable, so that land may be "available" for homesteading (if you don't mind your kids getting leukemia)..

It's all a con-job:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Did you not listen to the speech?
Bush mentioned giving away federally-owned land and asking the lottery winners to commit to building on that land. This isn't some upscale development project disguised as low-income housing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. If you have no money and no job, how will you "rebuild"?
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Most of us use mortages...
Federal low-rate mortgages would probably have to be part of the package.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. He was speaking of federally-owned land.
Obviously, private land remains the property of the owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Does anyone know what federally owned land he was talking about?
My guess would be national parks; the more valuable the land, the more Bush would want to give it away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. No idea.
If it's being used for homesteading, however, it's still a good idea (and hardly without precedent).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Well, it depends on the land, and the need.
Why is there a need for LAND all the sudden, in an area where plenty of people are looking to leave?

Sounds like Bush wants to trade people the national park parcel for a plot in NO that would have to be cleaned up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Well, he can't give away privately-owned land...
Edited on Fri Sep-16-05 11:40 AM by MercutioATC
If he's going to try a homesteading program, he's going to have to use previously undeveloped land...

...people are always free to buy privately-owned land on the open market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Of course he can give away privately owned land.
All he has to do is BUY it first. You think there aren't plenty of plots for sale right now? Seems to me that it would provide relief for two for the cost of one, namely, returning part of the investment of the victim and allowing another victim a home.

But giving away federal assets for free is so much easier: it gets rid of that national park, leaves the junk on the private land, and costs nothing that shows up on any balance sheet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncle ray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. and i suspect they'll buy it for almost nothing
by sticking the property owners with the cleanup bill if they want to claim their toxic land, regardless where the toxicity came from. so many people will simply not come back to pay thousands to clean their property before even thinking about rebuilding, so the gov't cleans it and foots the bill(make that check payable to Halliburton), then does whatever it wants with it's new property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Someone is going to buy it for almost nothing.
Edited on Fri Sep-16-05 01:05 PM by Inland
I suspect you are right: the land is toxic, even where it isn't dangerous simply from being underwater or part of the disappearing LA coastline.

But there's the rub to resettling these areas: without government action to remediate the disaster, the land really IS worthless.

Anyone who doesn't think that there is going to be a competent rebuilding is going to sell. Anyone who can't take the risk is going to sell. And it isn't going to be for much.

Suppose you are in charge of the fed or state govs. If the government is going to actually try to fix up these areas, then it SHOULD get in the market, taking all these properties off the hands of people who want to flee. Why? Because the government should have more faith in itself. It has inside information on its own competence. It can wait for a market upturn and sell to willing buyers. It can consolidate parcels, build it's own infrastructure.

Why the feds would have to give away a bird sanctuary or railroad easment of value to homesteaders is beyond me. That isn't cleaning up. That's running away from the damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. dupe
Edited on Fri Sep-16-05 11:49 AM by Inland
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comsymp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Exactly. This is not a new practice in the US -
Hell, it was a staple of Westward Expansion, including in OK, though that didn't get the press that the Land Runs (the Cruise/Kidman thing from Far And Away - and the basis for the nickname "Sooners", IIRC) did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
20. I took it to mean a lottery on gov lands
but with this thieving group, it wouldn't surprise me if a lottery was done with ticket sales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. My guess
Edited on Fri Sep-16-05 12:18 PM by creeksneakers2
The storm and flood will creates lots of HUD foreclosures. I think that's what is going to be given away. Whitehouse.gov says properties would be given in exchange for sweat equity. The properties probably won't be worth much more than the cost of repairing them.

Sounds like a nice program, but probably not the give everybody who wants one a nice house entitlement that it sounds like it is.

At Whitehouse.gov:

The President Proposed An Urban Homesteading Initiative To Provide A New Beginning For Lower-Income Evacuees. Homesteading will allow evacuees to occupy a government-owned home at a favorable mortgage rate, in exchange for their personal investment of sweat equity in the property. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the Federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery. In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, local governments, and public housing authorities, will support the development of homes on Federal property in New Orleans and cities across the region, and will encourage nonprofit organizations to commit properties as well. Homeownership is one of the great strengths of any community, and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of this region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC