The results of the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Using eminent domain to get rid of blight is a good thing.

Blight is all that some people have.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Blight is all that some people have.

Quiet, commie. If you shop at bargain stores you are, by definition, not a person. You have to enter a "Gap"-quality or better store, and buy something there, at least twice in your life to meet the minimum conditions stipulated for protection under Geneva.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Elok


If you shop at bargain stores you are, by definition, not a person. You have to enter a "Gap"-quality or better store, and buy something there, at least twice in your life to meet the minimum conditions stipulated for protection under Geneva.

[Flubber]

Oh and I find this type of use of eminent domain to be unnerving. It seems they want to expropriate a bunch of thriving businesses to create space for businesses they like better.

What's next? You expropriate a restaurant on a street corner since you think that a bookstore would go better there

[Flubber]

Oh and kid I am sort of surprised to see you against this. Afterall, it has elements of central planning of the economy and quashing private property rights-- things that I thought were central to your dogma.

But I guess in this case it is overriden since it is discount shops being removed for upper crust ones? Just curious but how would you feel if they wanted to take a real upper crust boutique area and build a bunch of discount stores citing some perceived need.

[DanS]

I wouldn't consider Target to be upper crust. It's a shade nicer than Walmart.

Many neighborhoods are without services that the suburbs take for granted. They might have a fast food joint or two, several liquor stores, and a carry out. Perhaps a drug store that doubles as a grocery store, a garage or a five and dime, like what populates Starland. That's it.

People here may laugh at the desire for restaurants with tablecloths and a Target. But polls of these areas show that there is strong support for these items, even in poor sections. The city's residents are sick and tired of shabby and want something a little more conducive to a real family life.

IOW, leaving aside the principles involved, the politicians are trying to do the voters' will.

The city gov't is also trying to upgrade the city's tax base through better use of the infrastructure already in place. Some of these areas have underground metrorail access but the neighborhood is blighted. That's leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
I wouldn't consider Target to be upper crust. It's a shade nicer than Walmart.

I've been in a Target so I am familiar with them. I was just curious if anyone's views would change if the goal was to take the neigbourhood downmarket instead of upmarket.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


Many neighborhoods are without services that the suburbs take for granted. They might have a fast food joint or two, several liquor stores, and a carry out. Perhaps a drug store that doubles as a grocery store, a garage or a five and dime, like what populates Starland. That's it.

And isn't the normal process for someone to see this great opportunity, buy out an existing owner and then build something ?

Originally posted by DanS


People here may laugh at the desire for restaurants with tablecloths and a Target. But polls of these areas show that there is strong support for these items, even in poor sections. The city's residents are sick and tired of shabby and want something a little more conducive to a real family life.

Well they can vote with their wallets by not patronizing stores they do not like.

[DanS]

No offense, but that seems sort of a sophist's debating point, given that I have never heard of a project having that explicit goal.

[Flubber]

Oh and don't get me wrong . .. I like city planning and zoning.

My problem is telling a business that is operating legally and profitably and which complies with applicable zoning, that they are no longer welcome. .. . that another more acceptable business will go there. It just seems wrong

[Elok]

So, they're giving the neighborhood what it wants by buying out the places where a lot of them work or shop? At least, I assumed these places were paying their bills and such with money given in exchange for goods and/or services. Or was it all due to an influx of magical cash from the Greenspan Dimension?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Flubber
And isn't the normal process for someone to see this great opportunity, buy out an existing owner and then build something ?

Well they can vote with their wallets by not patronizing stores they do not like.

I agree, but there's so much water under the bridge with regard to government intrusion in the private sphere. The fact is that for at least a generation, city politics were at once hostile to big businesses like Target, and in the pay of the least scrupulous businesses. Some small businesses have thrived in that environment. I'm not going to cry for the liquor store that's selling single 40s to the homeless, but is asked to move more upscale or move to a different neighborhood. Or the gentleman's club on the corner that finds that it's welcome is worn out.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS

I'm not going to cry for the liquor store that's selling single 40s to the homeless, but is asked to move more upscale or move to a different neighborhood. Or the gentleman's club on the corner.

I won't cry for them either . . . and if their land was needed to build a needed arterial, I could even see the need for an expropriation.

But here the argument seems th be that the businesses are not nice enough and also do not meet all of the neigborhood's needs . . . so lets replace them with different businesses.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS


I agree, but there's so much water under the bridge with regard to government intrusion in the private sphere. The fact is that for at least a generation, city politics were at once hostile to big businesses like Target, and in the pay of the least scrupulous businesses. Some small businesses have thrived in that environment. I'm not going to cry for the liquor store that's selling single 40s to the homeless, but is asked to move more upscale or move to a different neighborhood. Or the gentleman's club on the corner that finds that it's welcome is worn out.

But what they do, as far as I know, is rezone areas from residential to industrial or retail. What they are planning in Fresno is to rezone a large area from residential to industrial, and they give the residents some compensation. But what people in Fresno really need is more housing that they can afford (as well as better services). There's no city planning for that though.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Flubber


I won't cry for them either . . . and if their land was needed to build a needed arterial, I could even see the need for an expropriation.

But here the argument seems th be that the businesses are not nice enough and also do not meet all of the neigborhood's needs . . . so lets replace them with different businesses.

In this case, the article also alluded to the convoluted ownership of the land which was an impediment to redevelopment. This seems to happen from time to time in cities.

In any event, I wonder whether it's a synthetic exercise in trying to distinguish between the needed arterial and the needed shopping center. There seems to be a much stronger difference between the needed arterial and the ballpark, on the other hand, even though the ballpark will be government-owned. By the way, both projects are displacing the gentleman's club types of businesses.