What are your thoughts on government razing black neighborhoods in every major city to build our nations highway system?
Claim: U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris' father was a marxist economist.
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Link?
There have been lots of court decisions etc around eminent domain, I’m not sure what specific law you’re talking about, or even which George Bush.
Was it done so because that was the cheapest land, ideal route, or because it’s fun to use tax money to buy out black people?
What percentage of the black people living in those areas owned the property? Was some Jewish land owner actually the one getting expropriated, and the black resident was just the incidental victim?
What angle are we trying to play?
In general I’d say I prefer to allow the development of private transportation networks because that’s going to over time develop the most efficient and responsive methods in each place, but I think that has to be balanced with a practical consideration that you don’t want to allow private property to ‘imprison’ others (e.g. the owner of the ring road around Atlanta suddenly wants to charge 1 million tolls to get cross his roadway)
Mr Price control says hi!
Which along with the war on drugs (different penalties) destroyed the black family. That is when factories moved out of cities and exits weren't put in a lot of black areas.
That is a lot of ways was like Stalinism which is actually where the Soviet system ended up.
It was done because they were black and had the least power to fight back. So to clear things up? You're ok with government takeovers of private property for stuff like this? I'm trying to get a handle on this since this is textbook Marxism according to your definition.
What part of this answer confuses you?
In general I’d say I prefer to allow the development of private transportation networks because that’s going to over time develop the most efficient and responsive methods in each place, but I think that has to be balanced with a practical consideration that you don’t want to allow private property to ‘imprison’ others (e.g. the owner of the ring road around Atlanta suddenly wants to charge 1 million tolls to get cross his roadway)
I want private ownership, which implies private acquisition - not eminent domain, but think there needs to be some kind of right of way provision to prevent private property being used to wall people off (as I tried to explain in my example).
There’s not a need or place eminent domain in this context. I certainly oppose eminent domain as upheld in the Kelo decision.
States have felt the political pressure in response and stepped up:
Kelo backlash.
I stand corrected. What I'm remembering is a Supreme Court case that was decided during the Bush administration. Kelo v. City of New London and the Supreme Court basically ruled that cities could take land for economic development and it did not violate the Takings Clause of the fifth amendment.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia
Yeah, like I said above, I don't support the interpretation of 'public use' the court adopted in Kelo.I stand corrected. What I'm remembering is a Supreme Court case that was decided during the Bush administration. Kelo v. City of New London and the Supreme Court basically ruled that cities could take land for economic development and it did not violate the Takings Clause of the fifth amendment.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ripe for abuse, and bullshit.
The land in the Kelo decision that was condemned and the people forced out ended up being left vacant 20 years, and now the city is selling it to a developer.... to build housing at market rates.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/0...-land-condemned-in-kelo-v-city-of-new-london/
