SGB said:Use of eminant domain for private development is just plain wrong, and (dare I say it?) unAmerican!
jtfortin said:If you have a street filled with blighted and contaminated sites, I think it is a legitimate public interest to acquire these properties, clean them up, and re-sell them to private developers. Afterall, having a strong tax base, clean soils, stormwater quality and quantity control, safe streets, pedestrain access, and more employment opportunities seems like a legitamite governmental interest to me.
jresta said:ahh . . . fox news, our libertarian warriors borne on the waves of television to fight for our personal freedoms!
SGB said:[Off topic: EG - is there a 12 step program somewhere to help closeted moderate republicans like myself?]
SGB said:I think it is a legitimate public interest to encourage private parties to acquire these properties to improve them.
I say let the free market (willing seller & willing buyer) make that determination!
jresta said:condeming businesses or homes that are occupied? that's an entirely different story.
Mud Princess said:I did some work recently for a community where a private developer had purchased a large, empty building with the intention of renovating it for retail and office use. However, the property did not have enough space for parking. Next door were two vacant, dilapidated buildings that the city wanted to acquire and demolish to create a parking lot that the tenants could use. I'm curious what would you think of eminent domain in those circumstances?
jtfortin said:A lot of times the free market doesn't cooperate, especially when properties are contaiminated or blighted. It sometimes takes a more pro-active, coordinated approach. Private developers rarely want to take on the cost of cleaning up contaiminated sites. If the City where I work waited for the free market to run its course, the City would be a mess.