Re: NAT: Gov. gone Wild

On May 17, 3:13 pm, Mr.clydesl...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 17 Mai, 12:58, ScottW <Scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/16/AR200...

" The usually crammed infield at the Preakness Stakes, which earned
that nickname because of drunken fighting and other forms of
debauchery, was far from full as post time neared. Gone were the
topless women, and the teens who raced and stumbled across the tops of
portable toilets, pelted with beer cans as they went.

To restore civility to what had become little more than an all-day
party, officials at the Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore banned
spectators this year from bringing their own beverages, including
beer, onto the infield. The move contributed to a 30 percent drop in
attendance, and it drew plenty of complaints. "

Leave it to the gov. to kill a good party.

But here's the really wild part.

"The company filed for bankruptcy in March, saying it would put
Pimlico up for auction. It relented only after Gov. Martin O'Malley
(D) and state lawmakers threatened to seize the track by eminent
domain. "

Is there no rule of law left when it comes to government and
corporations?

ScottW

Pay attention!!!
the governor did not kill the beer party, The operators
of the track did that, i'e., the MAryland Jockey Club,
owned by Magna Enterteinment.
MAgna is in bankruptcy and is trying to
sell the MAryland tracks (i.e., the MAryland
'Jockey Club, which also owns the name of the "Preakness").

Which is their right...until the governor threatened eminent domain.



One of the suitors made noises about tearing down the track (Pimlico)
and
building a shopping center. That couls have soem consequences
for the raqce known as the Preakness. I could be abolished, moved to
LAurel (still in MD) or be moved out of state.

Why should the governor give a ***? What right does he have
to screw with a private corporation trying to get itself out of
bankruptcy?


So, there is the background for the threat of eminent domain.
It is not lawlessness. Eminent domain is a legal process.

ED is sometimes a legal process, not always.

But we're not even talking about the ED process.
We're talking about a governor illegally threatening to
misapply ED.

the owners can challenge the suit on
grounds of necessity.

and bear a big fat legal expense...hard to justify for a bankrupt
company.

Ultimately, the question
will be resolved by judges.

If they rule against the governor should he be personally
held responsible for the losses incurred by the company for his
illegal actions?

ScottW
.

Loading