Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Eminent Domain Animation

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Planderella's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 1998
    Location
    NOLA
    Posts
    4,468

    Eminent Domain Animation

    Sorry for the low-content post, but the following is a pretty cool animated short about the recent Supreme Court's decision about eminent domain.

    http://www.markfiore.com/animation/domination.html
    "A witty woman is a treasure, a witty beauty is a power!"

  2. #2
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,905
    yes...very nice.

    abandoned buildings must not be eliminated.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    The ends can justify the means.

  3. #3
    Prepare to be dominated! (I'll have to make this our mantra when we start Redevelopment meetings)
    Je suis Charlie

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Plus JNA's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    19,096
    Like the the Borg your community will be assimilated.
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  5. #5

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman
    yes...very nice.

    abandoned buildings must not be eliminated.
    Well....how often is this the case? You say "abandoned buildings must not be eliminated" but, in some cases, I would rather have a few scattered abandoned buildings than an entire block levelled with government eminent domain and replaced by yet another slice of generica (a "power center" or a "museum of pointless history") And, what about the Denver case. Can't let them small businesses stand in the way of a giant Wal Mart, can we?

    There are, of course, exceptions. But, too often eminent domain does not result in a real improvement in the neighborhood. Does anyone really think what replaced Maxwell Street was an improvement in any way? Or, the horrific brick plateau of the Boston City Hall Plaza/Charles River Village condo towers (versus the "slum" that well-meaning, all so knowing "professional planners" bulldozed in the West End)

    Thirty years later, the sterile blandness of San Francisco's Western Addition/Fillmore Street corridor remains a failure economically, socially ("negro removal," indeed, in SF's case) and architecturally. Sure, Fillmore Street had problems, but massive bureaucratic scraping of an entire neighborhood did not solve the problems-while destroying a neighborhood fabric that is increasingly valuable today.

    Plus, such "scraping" means that the aging, often unsightly space needed for small businesses is removed. Everyone is merely an employee of large, distant corporations, who use the power of "the state" to colonize every single niche in the regional marketplace.

    I'm just not sure that wholesale neighborhood removal for dubious purposes (and a WalMart or a new subsidized hotel, museum, and upscale housing) that shoudl not use the threat of government/legal force to implement. I'm just saying "government" doesn't always knoiw best, Haven't we learned anuthing from the last 40 years?

  6. #6
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,905
    I agree with you, BKM.

    I was just being a mild sarcastic baiter for a second.

    I personally love the very fine grained 19th century commercial corridors here in Chicagoland. Especially, the old ones that remain in Chicago (North Clark, North Milwaukee, W. 18th St., North Wells, etc.)

    In a hot market, any quality small scale abandoned building in a desirable neighborhood will not stay that way for long.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    The ends can justify the means.

  7. #7

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman
    I agree with you, BKM.

    I was just being a mild sarcastic baiter for a second.
    I really did think so, but I still took the bait.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian donk's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2001
    Location
    skating on thin ice
    Posts
    6,959
    It is good to have a high speed internet connection and a sound card. Really liked it. It would be funny to do the same cartoon from that judge's perspective, if his house goes down.
    Too lazy to beat myself up for being to lazy to beat myself up for being too lazy to... well you get the point....

  9. #9
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,929
    Blog entries
    1
    That is some funny stuff.

    OT:
    Reminds me of the political "This Land is Your Land" cartoon with Bush and Kerry during the 2004 election. My favorite part is when a Native American who says "this land was my land" and then the Americans sing "but now it's our land!!" and Best Buy, Wal-Mart and all the other big boxes pop up behind him.

    Here's the location of the video, but you now have to wait for a 30-second ad before it starts:
    http://jibjab.com/162.html
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  10. #10
    Cyburbian Trail Nazi's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Encroaching on something
    Posts
    2,727
    That was a great cartoon. My office loved it.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian tsc's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Under the Table
    Posts
    1,900
    Blog entries
    6
    That was fun. A local Planning Professor from Pace University wrote an editorial...sorry don't have a link...just the whole thing:


    Undue alarm greets Kelo decision
    By JOHN R. NOLON
    (Original Publication: July 24, 2005)

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the condemnation of several single-family homes by the City of New London, Conn. When I was first called by a reporter to comment on the case, called Kelo vs. New London, I remarked that there was "no news" in the decision - that the court simply confirmed a century-old legal doctrine, one that recognizes the power of economically distressed cities to condemn private property when needed to revitalize blighted areas. From Times Square to Getty Square, from the South Street Seaport to the Beacon waterfront, urban redevelopment projects have provided some hope for financially strapped cities struggling to serve the needs of their low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
    Given the uneventful nature of the decision in the context of settled law, the intensity of the post-decision media coverage of Kelo - and the heated rhetoric of political leaders who now threaten "corrective legislation" - is puzzling. The press, public and politicians apparently believe that the Supreme Court has left mom-and-pop businesses and single-family homes of every American vulnerable to condemnation that serves mostly private economic development interests. This is simply not what the case holds.
    There are several lessons to be learned from the widespread misunderstanding of the Kelo case. The first is how to read law cases. We teach first- year law students during orientation week that the decisions of courts are confined to their factual contexts. In Kelo, the Supreme Court determined that it is constitutional for New London to condemn title to 15 parcels of land needed to enable it to revitalize a significant waterfront area to create jobs, increase tax revenues and bring new life back to a distressed city. The court did not decide whether it was constitutional for a local government to condemn a brake shop in order to relocate a hardware store, to take title to private parcels to allow Donald Trump to expand his casino, or acquire a 99 Cents Only Store to enable Costco to expand, nor did it need to. These condemnations have been reviewed by state courts under existing law and found to violate the constitution because they primarily benefit private, as opposed to public, interests.
    The second lesson is to think through the implications of seemingly simple conclusions, often fed to the press and public by advocacy groups with agendas quite different from the matter at hand. If New London had lost, all types of redevelopment programs in our troubled urban areas would have been threatened. Consider Syracuse, where various industrial companies, including several oil refineries, challenged the city for condemning their properties to further a waterfront redevelopment plan on the south shore of Onondaga Lake. The state courts upheld the condemnations, reasoning that a mixed-use development in this lower-income portion of the city achieved important public benefits and complied with the standards contained in statutes adopted by the state Legislature.
    The third lesson is the importance of understanding the complete legal story behind complicated matters such as urban revitalization. Under state statutes in New York, despite the inference of the post-Kelo alarmists, redevelopment projects don't gestate in back rooms with greedy politicians waiting as midwives to the birth of private wealth. They are subject to onerous, transparent and lengthy processes that provide all the details of the project and invite public participation and extensive debate. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, redevelopment projects generate foot-high environmental impact statements that include an examination of their impact on community character and neighborhood change, and that contain lengthy chapters on all the projects' economic and environmental consequences.
    Finally, it is important to be clear about what is at stake in legal cases. The Kelo decision has been spun as an assault on middle-class homeowners in the pursuit of private-sector redevelopment interests. This ignores what the case is about more fundamentally. Kelo addresses the critical importance of the revitalization of cities from which affluent populations have fled. This demographic shift fuels sprawl, diminishes open space in exurban areas and drains critical regional centers of their financial strength.
    One-dimensional reportage and discussion of what is involved in the Kelo case also ignores fundamental principles of government that the case raises. It is settled doctrine that state courts and state legislatures should determine property rights and land use matters - not the federal courts - and that elected legislators are more qualified to decide what is in the public interest than are judges, unless critical constitutional interests dictate otherwise.
    "Yeehaw!" is not a foreign policy

    Renovating the '62 Metzendorf
    http://metzendorf.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 4
    Last post: 25 Nov 2009, 5:49 PM
  2. What happens after eminent domain when....
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 2
    Last post: 12 May 2006, 12:52 PM
  3. When antitrust met eminent domain
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 8
    Last post: 31 Mar 2006, 1:53 PM
  4. Eminent domain
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 29
    Last post: 26 Jan 2006, 10:57 PM
  5. Now that's Eminent Domain!
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 4
    Last post: 05 Oct 2002, 4:41 PM