(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
The spirit of the document is for it to be used to build roads, government buildings and pubilc services, and utilities, not to build strip malls, hotels, and parking lots to enrich private developers.
(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
The spirit of the document is for it to be used to build roads, government buildings and pubilc services, and utilities, not to build strip malls, hotels, and parking lots to enrich private developers.
I don't want to derail this thread, because it is pretty good with the Damn It Feels Good To Be A Clinton song, but I don't agree that is a fair and accurate description of its intent, roads and bridges. The intent is to serve the public interest and economic development does that.
(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
The spirit of the document is for it to be used to build roads, government buildings and pubilc services, and utilities, not to build strip malls, hotels, and parking lots to enrich private developers.
I don't want to derail this thread, because it is pretty good with the Damn It Feels Good To Be A Clinton song, but I don't agree that is a fair and accurate description of its intent, roads and bridges. The intent is to serve the public interest and economic development does that.
"Economic Development" is relative. It is picking winners and losers and a product of pure cronyism, plain and simple. A lot of existing businesses get crushed when that shiny new strip mall opens up. The new money goes to a corporate headquarters somewhere else aside from some $8 per hour jobs and maybe a few $35k retail management jobs and It is a race to who can grease the most politicians and creates an economic market that is inherently corrupt. I would argue it is one of the root causes of our economic problems.
(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
The spirit of the document is for it to be used to build roads, government buildings and pubilc services, and utilities, not to build strip malls, hotels, and parking lots to enrich private developers.
I don't want to derail this thread, because it is pretty good with the Damn It Feels Good To Be A Clinton song, but I don't agree that is a fair and accurate description of its intent, roads and bridges. The intent is to serve the public interest and economic development does that.
"Economic Development" is relative. It is picking winners and losers and a product of pure cronyism, plain and simple. A lot of existing businesses get crushed when that shiny new strip mall opens up. The new money goes to a corporate headquarters somewhere else aside from some $8 per hour jobs and maybe a few $35k retail management jobs and It is a race to who can grease the most politicians and creates an economic market that is inherently corrupt. I would argue it is one of the root causes of our economic problems.
There is nothing wrong with a municipality or state using their legitimate authority to further the public interest. If you don't like you always have the ballot box. But, it is the responsibility of those in control to decide what is good for the public interest while in office. Likewise, if you think it stinks after the fact you are welcome to fight over it.
But, its a necessary tool in development, a handful of people cannot hold a property veto over the greater good, especially when they are being paid anyways.
(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.
When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.
So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?
I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.
(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.
When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.
So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?
I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.
As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2016 02:26 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.
Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.
When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.
So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?
I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.
As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.
What about that which serves the private interest?
(02-12-2016 02:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.
When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.
So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?
I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.
As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.
What about that which serves the private interest?
As a byproduct of serving that which is public. That's not an issue. You could say the same thing about when the government builds a road, it uses a private contractor.
/
'Damn It Feels Good To Be A Clinton'
