Today's Eminent Domain Outrage

[1951Campbell]

Apparently the new Nets arena is a public benefit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/nyregion/07yards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

:rolleyes:

In a statement, Bruce Ratner, the chief executive of Forest City, said that the decision was “an important victory not only for Atlantic Yards but for Brooklyn as well.”

Forest City Ratner Companies is also the development partner for the new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times.



Gee, and I wondered why the New York Times actually favored Kelo. :jagoff:

[Dan Mega]

Its really unfortunate that those with money can pay off a city to get this to go through.

[CaptainBallz]

let the market decide....

[pdimas]

When they passed a law saying that private companies can use Emminent Domain to build their damn Condos a few years ago it was kind of upsetting. I believe the public benefit came from the tax revenue generated by the condos.

[1951Campbell]

let the market decide....

:rolleyes:

[CaptainBallz]

:rolleyes:

EXACTLY

[1951Campbell]

When they passed a law saying that private companies can use Emminent Domain to build their damn Condos a few years ago it was kind of upsetting. I believe the public benefit came from the tax revenue generated by the condos.

I take it Illinois is not one of the many states that passed legislation after Kelo to blunt its impact?

EXACTLY

:confused:

This wasn't the market evicting people in order to enrich a developer, it was you much-beloved democratically-elected government acting in the "public interest" for the "greater good", etc. etc. etc.

You have to admit your fervent embrace of government action in the name of "social benefit" puts you in a verrrry tough spot in regard to eminent domain takings.

[CaptainBallz]

This wasn't the market evicting people in order to enrich a developer, it was you much-beloved democratically-elected government acting in the "public interest" for the "greater good", etc. etc. etc.

You have to admit your fervent embrace of government action in the name of "social benefit" puts you in a verrrry tough spot in regard to eminent domain takings.

I'm willing to bet if you follow the money trail, you'll find some of it in the pockets of those elected officials, but either way...

I would say that "tax revenue" and "job creation" is a bit broad to justify it as "social benefit", so I'm not really compromised here. My take on it would be where it generally should be-- roads, schools, etc...
Seems as though this is more a matter of a judge having his head up his ass..

[1951Campbell]

I'm willing to bet if you follow the money trail, you'll find some of it in the pockets of those elected officials, but either way...

I would say that "tax revenue" and "job creation" is a bit broad to justify it as "social benefit", so I'm not really compromised here. My take on it would be where it generally should be-- roads, schools, etc...

Seems as though this is more a matter of a judge having his head up his ass..

With all due respect, your position is fairly compromised.

First, you seem to want to prioritize the concept of the public good or social benefit before a free market, property rights, or personal choice.

Second, you've explicitly endorsed job creation, I would assume, as part of a broad concept of the public good or social benefit.

Third, I think it's fair to assume that you position on tax revenue is that the more, the better to fund this public good or social benefit.

Well, someone put that into practice, and it looked pretty ugly.

[CaptainBallz]

With all due respect, your position is fairly compromised.

First, you seem to want to prioritize the concept of the public good or social benefit before a free market, property rights, or personal choice.

Second, you've explicitly endorsed job creation, I would assume, as part of a broad concept of the public good or social benefit.

Third, I think it's fair to assume that you position on tax revenue is that the more, the better to fund this public good or social benefit.

Well, someone put that into practice, and it looked pretty ugly.

C'mon, don't throw "personal choice" in there like anything I've said will prevent anyone from having their cheerios...

You just happen to equate "personal choice" with 'enriching oneself at the expense of others".. I don't consider that a matter of "freedom of choice". I call it "criminal"..

But as for the public good and overall social benefit coming before the "market" or "private property", you're damn right.

In this case, The Nets having a new stadium wouldn't really fit that category. Either way, it would come down to how many people are being displaced vs. how many jobs are being created vs. who's getting these jobs vs. what the job market is/ rate of unemployment is for the general region.

To me, this sounds like a pork project for a developer and is highly suspicious in its intentions.

If you think that I support anything and everything that tax money can be skimmed from, you're mistaken...