5 ms·

> 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 ma

by 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?

by anamax 16y ago

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?