4 ms·
Isn't this temporary? The government should be concerned with the long term benefit to the city overall. The businesses that come in afterwards would likely ben
by thegayngler 9y ago
Isn't this temporary? The government should be concerned with the long term benefit to the city overall. The businesses that come in afterwards would likely benefit from subway access.
- bronson 9y agoNope. The Bart trench appears to have turned Market St into a slum for generations (and this is despite all the municipal money being poured into transbay and other nearby sites). Well, it IS getting better, slowly. Maybe it will take 75 years to recover. How long-term are you thinking?
- diab0lic 9y agoSure it is temporary and the businesses established afterwards would benefit greatly. However you're discouraging the establishment of new businesses in general if your policy includes not caring about the short term effects. What if that subway needs major maintenance in two years because of a mistake during construction? Why would I open a business on that street if the city has already shown it'll put me out of business to work on it?
- ekianjo 9y ago> The government should be concerned with the long term benefit to the city overall. The government should first be concerned by not crushing individuals' rights. That is what Rule of Law is for. Many societies have been utterly destroyed by putting "the general good" as a pretext for policies.
- rayiner 9y agoWhat “rights” do individual property owners have to public streets adjacent to their property?
- fwn 9y agoContingency. That's just a standard good governance principle.
- thegayngler 9y agoDoesn't the government subsidize these businesses while construction goes on? I guess I was under the impression they would be subsidized.