4 ms·

I actually work for Columbia and my brother graduated from their engineering school, SEAS. Now I think it's called Fu, no joke. Yes Columbia is elitist, like th

I actually work for Columbia and my brother graduated from their engineering school, SEAS. Now I think it's called Fu, no joke. Yes Columbia is elitist, like the other Ivys, but they do let a number of poor people in (like my brother) and give them just enough money to make it affordable with loans. Could they do better, ya I think so. But eh, what are you gonna do about it? In reality, if you are willing to become indebted to student loans and have decent grades/test scores you can get into a number of elitist institutions of higher education that will give you some sort of hardship discount. In regards to your second point, I also happen to live just a few blocks from where that whole eminent domain thing took place. Believe me, it's quite blighted but has been on the up and up in the last 5 years or so. The handful of people who held out were operating storage facilities, gas stations and mechanics shops. One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. I've seen the plans, I've been to the meetings. Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. Not only that but I believe they will also be opening a grade school of some sort open to children from the area. Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins.

anamax 16y ago
> One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. So? (Even if his projects also involve eminent domain that wouldn't make Columbia's actions acceptable.) I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. > Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. And yet, they refused. So Columbia is resorting to thuggery. > Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. In other words, Columbia could pay more. > Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins. There are lots of places where they could build. And no, Columbia's convenience really doesn't matter. There's always a good excuse to hose someone.
- siculars 16y ago
  >I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. Dude, relax. I don't want to argue with anyone. I'm just telling HN the way I see it. Besides, there is very little that is "indefensible" nowadays.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. If an owner allows valuable property to fall into blight, he is not fulfilling his very minimal civic duties as a property owner.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. You're assuming that blight means "poor condition" or somesuch. The problem is that the operating definition is "property owned by the politically weak that is desired by the politically strong". That's how blight condemnations actually work. Note that the person trying to defend Columbia says that the property was in poor shape but the current owners have fixed that. His argument is that they're engaged in the "wrong" sorts of biz, not that it's actually in disrepair. Their reward for fixing actual blight is to have their property taken away.... > Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. Since when does that make it good?
unsignedlong 16y ago
They let in a small number of charity cases only because if they didn't, they would have already lost their tax exemption. What are we going to do about it, you ask? Recognize that these institutions primarily exit for their own benefit, for the benefit of a tiny economic elite, and not for the benefit of the greater public good (as they claim), and start taxing them accordingly. If I and everyone else here has to pay capital gains taxes, Columbia should have to "pay its fair share" as well. As for eminent domain, it should never be used for private gain. If Columbia wants more property in Manhattan (an island with some of the most expensive property on the planet), they should have to pay whatever the market demands, not call upon the government to steal it from tax-paying businesses. And the "jobs and money" argument always gets trotted out to defend eminent domain abuse and is bogus; this expansion will benefit Midwestern children of privilege who want to study in New York far more than it will the people who live in Harlem and have lived in Harlem for generations.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Stanford, for example, offers free tuition depending upon the student. Columbia could do it different.

anamax 16y ago

> One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. So? (Even if his projects also involve eminent domain that wouldn't make Columbia's actions acceptable.) I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. > Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. And yet, they refused. So Columbia is resorting to thuggery. > Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. In other words, Columbia could pay more. > Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins. There are lots of places where they could build. And no, Columbia's convenience really doesn't matter. There's always a good excuse to hose someone.

siculars 16y ago
>I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. Dude, relax. I don't want to argue with anyone. I'm just telling HN the way I see it. Besides, there is very little that is "indefensible" nowadays.
cynicalkane 16y ago
I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. If an owner allows valuable property to fall into blight, he is not fulfilling his very minimal civic duties as a property owner.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. You're assuming that blight means "poor condition" or somesuch. The problem is that the operating definition is "property owned by the politically weak that is desired by the politically strong". That's how blight condemnations actually work. Note that the person trying to defend Columbia says that the property was in poor shape but the current owners have fixed that. His argument is that they're engaged in the "wrong" sorts of biz, not that it's actually in disrepair. Their reward for fixing actual blight is to have their property taken away.... > Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. Since when does that make it good?

unsignedlong 16y ago

They let in a small number of charity cases only because if they didn't, they would have already lost their tax exemption. What are we going to do about it, you ask? Recognize that these institutions primarily exit for their own benefit, for the benefit of a tiny economic elite, and not for the benefit of the greater public good (as they claim), and start taxing them accordingly. If I and everyone else here has to pay capital gains taxes, Columbia should have to "pay its fair share" as well. As for eminent domain, it should never be used for private gain. If Columbia wants more property in Manhattan (an island with some of the most expensive property on the planet), they should have to pay whatever the market demands, not call upon the government to steal it from tax-paying businesses. And the "jobs and money" argument always gets trotted out to defend eminent domain abuse and is bogus; this expansion will benefit Midwestern children of privilege who want to study in New York far more than it will the people who live in Harlem and have lived in Harlem for generations.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Stanford, for example, offers free tuition depending upon the student. Columbia could do it different.