5 ms·
I'll check it out. I live in Park Slope. What a joke. How about if you want to buy land, you make offers people can't refuse - that's suppose to be how capitali
by ada1981 9y ago
I'll check it out. I live in Park Slope. What a joke. How about if you want to buy land, you make offers people can't refuse - that's suppose to be how capitalism works.
- tehlike 9y agoOnly when it benefits the capital.
- mikestew 9y agoIf you’re going for “offer you can’t refuse” in The Godfather sense, that’s what this, without the messing horse butchery.
- ada1981 9y agoI meant more like 2-5x market rates.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- DoofusOfDeath 9y agoAhem, the offer that couldn't be refused took place before the horse incident.
- perl4ever 9y agoEminent domain often seems unfair, but in any situation where everyone must agree to a plan, being the last holdout gives a person power that they really didn't do anything to deserve either. I'm not sure anybody believes that getting everybody to agree on something should always be required to make progress. Something that comes to mind are the bondholder holdouts that objected to Venezuela's debt restructuring. You may side with the people being bullied by the rich and powerful in any circumstance, but that doesn't uniformly lead to defending holdouts. My point is, no, paying any price is not how things work in capitalist societies or anywhere, because it's not practical, regardless of how unfair this particular instance is. Edit: Wow, fastest downvote ever. Wonder if it is automated somehow. I don't think the ability (and prevalence) of downvoting opinions you disagree with contributes to the professed goals of HN. I appreciate strict moderation for civility, but given the ability to downvote rather than engage with (or ignore) a polite comment, people tend to abuse it.
- figgis 9y agoThese are peoples homes, land, and likely history. Demolishing that without the blessing of the owners is ridiculous. I just can't see how that is comparable to bondholder holdouts.
- perl4ever 9y agoIt's not morally comparable, which is an essential part of my point. I think perhaps my comment is inspiring kneejerk reactions as though I was defending this instance of eminent domain, but it was a response to the direct parent, which was attacking something much broader than this instance. Coordination problems preventing people from making collective progress are real, and mechanisms for eminent domain exist to deal with those real problems, is all I'm saying. That is independent of whether some holdouts are righteous or not in particular circumstances. To repeat, please interpret my comments in the context of what I am responding to, not just the article link.
- ada1981 9y agoI think the issue is that people think they actually "own" property, when in fact they merely rent it from the state. It's dressed up with fancy words and paperwork, but when the State has a better use for it than you having it, they will find a way.
- chrismcb 9y agoI guess it depends on your definition progress. As far as being the last holdout, they did do something to "deserve" the power... They held out. And sometimes that backfires (see the Up house) you shouldn't be made to give up your property, because someone else wants to use it to make money. I think there are times when eminent domain should be used, but building a stadium, or a mall, is not one of them.
- mikeash 9y agoWhy isn’t is practical, exactly? Disney World managed to pull it off, and I’m sure there are a ton of other examples. Eminent domain for private projects is the exception, not the rule.
- communalist 9y agohow capitalism works. Not really, but okay.