Morally, how do we reconcile the eminent domain for Atlantic Yards?

This is so very simplistic. EVERY government taking, EVERY single one has some benefit for private landowners. It's just indirect. A city buys land for a school and the nearby residents benefit when they sell their homes. A state buys land for a highway and the property owners near the right of way profit handsomely. A municipal authority takes an easement to build water and sewer lines and those along the lines benefit both in terms of the amenities as well as in the value of their property.

Libertarianism, Objectivism and their derivatives have such wonderful intellectual appeal. Too bad there's a real world where those of who aren't Ron Paul have to live.

Individual property rights have never been sacrosanct. There are always abridgments going back to English common law.

In any case, the Supreme Court will decide in conference Thursday morning whether to take the case. It is highly unlikely they will. If they don't, the critics will have lost at every level on their biggest, most significant challenge. They can keep filing suits, but at some point judges will stop giving out temporary restraining orders and the arena will move forward...and twenty years from now, no one will care.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 10 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is so very simplistic. EVERY government taking, EVERY single one has some benefit for private landowners. It's just indirect. A city buys land for a school and the nearby residents benefit when they sell their homes. A state buys land for a highway and the property owners near the right of way profit handsomely. A municipal authority takes an easement to build water and sewer lines and those along the lines benefit both in terms of the amenities as well as in the value of their property.

Libertarianism, Objectivism and their derivatives have such wonderful intellectual appeal. Too bad there's a real world where those of who aren't Ron Paul have to live.

Individual property rights have never been sacrosanct. There are always abridgments going back to English common law.

In any case, the Supreme Court will decide in conference Thursday morning whether to take the case. It is highly unlikely they will. If they don't, the critics will have lost at every level on their biggest, most significant challenge. They can keep filing suits, but at some point judges will stop giving out temporary restraining orders and the arena will move forward...and twenty years from now, no one will care.</div>

Duly noted, and those benefits are great.

Like I said I'm no Ron Paul Libertarian, but the fact that the public can't hold Ratner accountable for any possible abuse is a concern no?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 10 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is so very simplistic. EVERY government taking, EVERY single one has some benefit for private landowners. It's just indirect. A city buys land for a school and the nearby residents benefit when they sell their homes. A state buys land for a highway and the property owners near the right of way profit handsomely. A municipal authority takes an easement to build water and sewer lines and those along the lines benefit both in terms of the amenities as well as in the value of their property.

Libertarianism, Objectivism and their derivatives have such wonderful intellectual appeal. Too bad there's a real world where those of who aren't Ron Paul have to live.

Individual property rights have never been sacrosanct. There are always abridgments going back to English common law.

In any case, the Supreme Court will decide in conference Thursday morning whether to take the case. It is highly unlikely they will. If they don't, the critics will have lost at every level on their biggest, most significant challenge. They can keep filing suits, but at some point judges will stop giving out temporary restraining orders and the arena will move forward...and twenty years from now, no one will care.</div>


Indirect benefits are all well and good. But again, they shouldn't come at the expense of property rights. And how do you measure the direct costs to the citizens? You can cite all of the court cases that you want. A court ruling forms law, it doesn't justify the law in itself.

Please don't compare a school, road, or sewer line to an NBA arena. Property rights should not be infringed for a sports facility.

If Ratner wants the property so bad, he is perfectly free to buy out every property owner. But hey, why not have the government FORCE people out of their homes at a below market price and FORCE the taxpayers to kick in subsidies? Yeah, that's not a corrupt abuse of power.

If anyone should get welfare at the taxpayers' expense, it's paupers like Bruce Ratner. Poor guy, he deserves a break.