> 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

> 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?