apalmison

See previous post . . I don't live in Akron. . . I was talking about a different Univ.

I don't disagree at all - you make great points. My point is simply that eminent domain is deeply ingrained in our Constitutional system. It would take a tremendous amount of political will to do away with it. Maybe it is expansively used or overused, but I'd much rather it be used here with a more clear public purpose than cases like Kelo. It's not a highway or a bridge, but it's not at the maximum of the state's power under the current law either.It's an interesting issue in the sports world because, post Kelo, it's much easier to seize land for stadiums and the like under the justification of "economic development". With taxpayers often contributing to stadiums, there's even more public support for seizure.I'm not sure about the roots of eminent domain - to allow the majority to steamroll the minority in doing what they think is right for the community; to ensure the highest and best use for land that is blighted or underutilized; or what. I do know that for some reason it was important enough to our system to enshrine it in the Constitution. Changing that is not easy, even if it's application is enlarged or narrowed as attitudes about where to draw the line between property rights and community benefit ebb and flow. ZippyAlum - so they ended up with a bunch of houses they didn't want in the first place; neighbors with each other . . . priceless! Where I am, the University is trying to scoop up an entire block of rather historic houses to make way for . . . a parking lot. Talk about highest and best use!( <--- I used the wrong emoticon in my last post. I meant to use ---> )

An interesting topic. I understand the adherence to personal property rights, but I think eminent domain in this case is consistent with the takings clause. Eminent domain has been especially controversial since Kelo v. City of New London's expansion of the definition of "public use" to include projects that will increase tax revenue and have other economic benefits to the community (more broadly, Kelo said that a use is "public" if it is "rationally related" to a "conceivable government purpose"). You can certainly make the argument that some cities, states, and the feds have pushed the limit in terms of what constitutes public use, but individual property rights have never been absolute. The Fifth Amendment (1791) explicitly grants Congress (and the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) the power to take private property for public use provided that just compensation is given. Like it or not, eminent domain is here unless: 1) you successfully lobby the state legislature to agree to not use eminent domain or limit its application to a narrower definition public uses, or 2) muster the overwhelming support necessary to amend the Constitution. I thought Kelo was poorly decided for a number of reasons that I won't get into here. In this situation, though, there is a long, long line of cases holding that the eminent domain of land for a public university is a sufficient "public use". On the face of it, (and I'm 250 miles away and not readily privy to all of the details of the project/how the deal is structured) this looks a lot like the cases using land for a library, dorm, or whatever. The cases I found on the subject support what UA has done in the purely Constitutional sense - with Kelo providing the "ceiling" of government power in takings cases. What constitutes "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment is a whole other issue for another day.

Thanks for the post. Looking forward to the matchup.

I thought it was odd, and I guess it's within the rules so I'm not complaining, but isn't it weird to challenge a play for the absence of a call? Geesh, could you imagine throwing the red flag everytime the guys upstairs saw a hold?! Seems like a slippery slope to me.

Looks like OU eeked one out 61 - 59 over BSU

42 - 40 C. Mich; OU v. BSU tied at 59

57 - 53 OU with .38 left.

I hesitate to even dignify this with a response but I would like to point out the irony that someone who has apparently been posting in a UA message board under false pretenses is criticizing the rowdies for entering the Can't student section under false pretenses. hmmmm...

My first thought after seeing the final score last night - revenge will taste even sweeter on March 9 than it did on Jan. 5. Go Zips!

Great point. Us out-of-towners need a viable way to see some more games. I'm sure there'd be some folks who'd love to do play by play as well. So long as they do a better job than the Brian Collins from Ball State. If you've never seen that guy, click below.

I agree with most of the discussion so far. I'll add this - the failure to capitalize on successes. Not just for Akron, but conference-wide. Wasn't it just a few years ago the MAC had 3 ranked teams at one point? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it BG, Miami, and Toledo - - all Ohio schools. In a recruiting hot-bed like Ohio (that I put up there with CA, FL, and TX), those teams at least should have been able to build off of that success. But, as has been said here many teams, there has been no dominant team in the MAC for some time now. It's going to take a lot for our reputation to recover as a conference.

So true . . . So true.

Damn. Thanks for the play-by-play, all. Appreciate it.

and ESPN refuses to carry these games . . .

killin' me

Kinda lame for can't to be voting against us. Exposure for Akron is exposure for the MAC which is exposure for Can't. A tide that raises all ships. Silly.

I wrote those idiots to inform them of their error. I'll post if I get a response. We seriously CANNOT lose to a school that can't get our mascot right! Keep voting!!

Done! Good job everyone, now let's keep it up against the surprisingly strong Gopher!

When does voting end?

What?! Gopher has stretched his lead to 4,000 votes over Hairy Dawg! What is going on in Minnesota? :blink: Keep the pressure on blob, everyone's voting against us!