- This topic has 155 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 9, 2010 at 4:10 PM #639011December 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM #637918
briansd1
GuestI have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?
December 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM #637991GuestI have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?
December 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM #638572GuestI have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?
December 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM #638704GuestI have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?
December 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM #639021GuestI have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?
December 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM #637923
CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?[/quote]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.
December 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM #637996CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?[/quote]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.
December 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM #638577CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?[/quote]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.
December 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM #638709CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?[/quote]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.
December 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM #639026CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I have not followed the story.
Was the homeowner compensated for the taking of his property?[/quote]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.
December 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM #637933Eugene
Participant[quote=flu]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.[/quote]If I were the homeowner, and my insurance didn’t want to pay, and the government wanted to make me $200,000 poorer by burning down my house without compensation, I’d be in the court trying to get an injunction against the burning. Fifth amendment, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
Since we didn’t hear about the homeowner trying to stop the burning, some kind of deal must have been worked out. Maybe the government paid half and the insurance company paid another half.
December 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM #638006Participant[quote=flu]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.[/quote]If I were the homeowner, and my insurance didn’t want to pay, and the government wanted to make me $200,000 poorer by burning down my house without compensation, I’d be in the court trying to get an injunction against the burning. Fifth amendment, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
Since we didn’t hear about the homeowner trying to stop the burning, some kind of deal must have been worked out. Maybe the government paid half and the insurance company paid another half.
December 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM #638587Participant[quote=flu]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.[/quote]If I were the homeowner, and my insurance didn’t want to pay, and the government wanted to make me $200,000 poorer by burning down my house without compensation, I’d be in the court trying to get an injunction against the burning. Fifth amendment, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
Since we didn’t hear about the homeowner trying to stop the burning, some kind of deal must have been worked out. Maybe the government paid half and the insurance company paid another half.
December 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM #638720Participant[quote=flu]
NPR says that the homeowner is most likely S.O.L because most homeowner insurance wouldn’t ensure for something like this.[/quote]If I were the homeowner, and my insurance didn’t want to pay, and the government wanted to make me $200,000 poorer by burning down my house without compensation, I’d be in the court trying to get an injunction against the burning. Fifth amendment, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
Since we didn’t hear about the homeowner trying to stop the burning, some kind of deal must have been worked out. Maybe the government paid half and the insurance company paid another half.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.