9 ms·

Columbia University vs the little guy

69 points by cwan 16y ago

iwwr 16y ago
So private universities now have the authority of eminent domain to exercise "architectural vision"? This is theft of land.
javanix 16y ago
If true, this is by far the most intelligent article I've ever read from the Post.
pslamnp2 16y ago
legalized plunder
jimmyk 16y ago
I don't know any details not given in the article, but one would think the Supreme Court would welcome the opportunity to rectify their previous decision on eminent domain. Or perhaps they're hoping everyone has forgotten that the land taken in that particular case remains a giant sand lot and don't want to bring it up again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
lftl 16y ago
One of the few things to be proud of in Alabama politics, is that we immediately passed an amendment that disallows the use of eminent domain in situations where the property will pass to a private owner.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  I am sure thats great news for the individuals in question. Oh right, doesn't do anything to help those hurt.
- lanstein 16y ago
  "Thank God for Mississippi"
ams6110 16y ago
The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. John Adams (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15....)
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains. Avram Noam Chomsky
  - javert 16y ago
    Wow, Chomsky got something right! I couldn't agree more. See, that's a good thing. Stalin and Hitler tried seizing property "for the majority."
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      Actually I just put up the quote as a counterpoint.... I'm sure we can find better refutations that don't invoke Mr. Godwin. Regardless though, my core point in this is that the sanctity of private property within real estate isn't an unqualified good; as a very firmly limited resource with impacts on us all, there are surely times when it is right that the common good override the individual claim, with truly fair compensation for this violation.
      - javert 16y ago
        there are surely times when it is right that the common good override the individual claim, with truly fair compensation for this violation Can you give examples? The only one I can think of that is potentially convincing is for building highways.
        eftpotrm 16y ago
jwhitney 16y ago
It sounds like a real pisser for the owner of the businesses, but it's hard to take the article seriously when it's so loaded with populist sneering. The first line is the giveaway: "We often hear politicians and pundits denounce property rights" -- do we really? I don't know if I've ever heard a US politician explicitly denounce "property rights" as a broad category. It isn't necessary to keep harping on the broader issue -- just tell the story and it should be clear whose rights are being violated, if any.
presidentender 16y ago
I have one philosophical law which governs my behavior and the behavior of my idealized society: no rational agent should ever use force against another. Private property law can't be derived from that, but it's a useful secondary axiom for avoiding the use of force. The court's decision in this case does mean that force has been used against the property's owners.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  While I hate to quote the underlying societal philosophy of Starship Troopers (ahem....) - And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. We legally compel all sorts of actions. We obey these compulsions (in theory at least) because we know that if we don't we risk being forcibly compelled to comply or forcibly restricted in other ways, such as fines or imprisonment. I applaud your motives but rationally there is an underlying, implied force behind a great many actions between us.
yardie 16y ago
This is the the same New York City where the main industry is the transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich right? So why am I not surprised when the courts do exactly that?
lambda 16y ago
This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. For instance, it claims that the government is "seizing" the land, which indicates taking property without compensation; eminent domain, however, requires paying fair market value for any land taken (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse). The article uses incorrect terminology ("public domain" when "eminent domain" is meant, though it uses the correct term later). The article sets up strawmen, like the politicians who denounce property rights, without ever quoting any politicians as actually denouncing property rights. The article tries to position Columbia University as a big bad meanie, only catering to the rich and wealthy; while Columbia is a large institution with considerable resources, it is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and while it does have many rich and well connected students, it also provides need-based scholarships so that anyone who gets in will be able to afford it regardless of their financial status. For many less well-off students, top tier and Ivy-league schools can be more affordable than lower tier or state schools, as there is much more need-based financial aid available. Now, I disagree strongly with eminent domain being used to buy land and resell it to private for-profit developers. For an educational non-profit like Columbia, it's more of a grey zone. Using language like "seize" and implying that Columbia is a big rich bully doesn't really help to clarify this situation.
- meterplech 16y ago
  Why- Columbia is a big rich bully in this situation. Sure, they are a non-profit, but they have a 6.5 Billion dollar endowment that they are using to lawyer up and kick people out of their land. And, the article is right to note that the people who mostly benefit from this are the mostly affluent students and professors at Columbia. Yes, they are paying them "fair value," how would you feel if someone supposedly wanted to use your startup/company/car and decided took it while giving you an amount they determine as appropriate? This is a slippery slope that shouldn't be encouraged.
  - nostromo 16y ago
    I have to disagree. My own sense is that it has become impossible for the US to complete publicly-beneficial projects anymore. You see it in many cities that want high-speed rail or simple public transit. These projects have become unaffordable. Why? Not because of the labor or materials cost, but because every piece of land needed for such a project will require a protracted legal battle spanning many years in order to squeeze money from the government and determine a "fair value" that in the end is usually very inflated. I think the US could find itself in a very sorry situation if we remain paralyzed when it comes to building publicly beneficial infrastructure. Meanwhile China (who I am loathe to imitate) is building itself into the 21st century overnight, while we litigate for years (or decades) over the abandoned lot or corner gas-station that was in the way of something that provides much more value to the public.
forgotAgain 16y ago
A couple of things that are left out of the story: - The area in question is blighted. This isn't an old area like SoHo is old. Think of the worst images of New York City from forty years ago. Think of the Charles Bronson vigilante movies from the 1970's. - If you've been to a top school in the past few years you know that they've been involved in an arms race of building facilities. If you want to be a top university in this country you need to be able to attract the top faculty and students. You need the infrastructure. In NYC this is almost impossible given the cost of real estate and overcrowding. Columbia isn't doing this as a capricious act. It needs to expand if it is going to survive as a premier university. This isn't being done to build luxury dorms for rich undergrads. This is being done to provide new research and teaching facilities so that a two hundred fifty year old university can continue into the future. - The businesses in question are the last in the area. Over the last ten years or so there has been a lot of back and forth between the university and its surrounding neighborhood. Some of it Columbia should be very embarrassed (perhaps even ashamed about) but after much squabbling the businesses in the article are the last holdouts. There is a lot being given back to the community by Columbia to make up for taking a larger part of the neighborhood. This includes cash payments, new schools, new community centers and housing for those displaced. - The businesses in question were offered payment much in excess of what their properties are worth. The warehouse company was also offered a swap for real estate in a much more desirable location in the area. It agreed to the swap and then reneged on the deal. The situation sucks but it's the world we live in. It's almost impossible for an institution to grow in the center of a major urban area. At the same time those institutions must grow if the urban area is to remain vibrant for its citizens going into the future. All things considered I think Columbia has been getting a raw deal in the condemnations like the one in the NY Post. It's easy pickings for the paper to rile up it's readers but in the end it only hurts the city as a whole. I'm not part of Columbia but my wife is an alumni and my daughter is a current student there.
- bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
  > It needs to expand if it is going to survive as a premier university. How is it in the public's interest that Columbia be a premier university? If their top faculty leaves to teach elsewhere, they'll still be teaching. Students will receive their educations. Columbia does worse, other schools do better. No net loss.

69 points by cwan 16y ago

iwwr 16y ago

So private universities now have the authority of eminent domain to exercise "architectural vision"? This is theft of land.

javanix 16y ago

If true, this is by far the most intelligent article I've ever read from the Post.

pslamnp2 16y ago

legalized plunder

jimmyk 16y ago

I don't know any details not given in the article, but one would think the Supreme Court would welcome the opportunity to rectify their previous decision on eminent domain. Or perhaps they're hoping everyone has forgotten that the land taken in that particular case remains a giant sand lot and don't want to bring it up again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

lftl 16y ago

One of the few things to be proud of in Alabama politics, is that we immediately passed an amendment that disallows the use of eminent domain in situations where the property will pass to a private owner.

tomjen3 16y ago
I am sure thats great news for the individuals in question. Oh right, doesn't do anything to help those hurt.
lanstein 16y ago
"Thank God for Mississippi"

ams6110 16y ago

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. John Adams (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15....)

eftpotrm 16y ago
The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains. Avram Noam Chomsky
- javert 16y ago
  Wow, Chomsky got something right! I couldn't agree more. See, that's a good thing. Stalin and Hitler tried seizing property "for the majority."
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    Actually I just put up the quote as a counterpoint.... I'm sure we can find better refutations that don't invoke Mr. Godwin. Regardless though, my core point in this is that the sanctity of private property within real estate isn't an unqualified good; as a very firmly limited resource with impacts on us all, there are surely times when it is right that the common good override the individual claim, with truly fair compensation for this violation.
    - javert 16y ago
      there are surely times when it is right that the common good override the individual claim, with truly fair compensation for this violation Can you give examples? The only one I can think of that is potentially convincing is for building highways.
      - eftpotrm 16y ago

jwhitney 16y ago

It sounds like a real pisser for the owner of the businesses, but it's hard to take the article seriously when it's so loaded with populist sneering. The first line is the giveaway: "We often hear politicians and pundits denounce property rights" -- do we really? I don't know if I've ever heard a US politician explicitly denounce "property rights" as a broad category. It isn't necessary to keep harping on the broader issue -- just tell the story and it should be clear whose rights are being violated, if any.

presidentender 16y ago

I have one philosophical law which governs my behavior and the behavior of my idealized society: no rational agent should ever use force against another. Private property law can't be derived from that, but it's a useful secondary axiom for avoiding the use of force. The court's decision in this case does mean that force has been used against the property's owners.

eftpotrm 16y ago
While I hate to quote the underlying societal philosophy of Starship Troopers (ahem....) - And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. We legally compel all sorts of actions. We obey these compulsions (in theory at least) because we know that if we don't we risk being forcibly compelled to comply or forcibly restricted in other ways, such as fines or imprisonment. I applaud your motives but rationally there is an underlying, implied force behind a great many actions between us.

yardie 16y ago

This is the the same New York City where the main industry is the transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich right? So why am I not surprised when the courts do exactly that?

lambda 16y ago

This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. For instance, it claims that the government is "seizing" the land, which indicates taking property without compensation; eminent domain, however, requires paying fair market value for any land taken (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse). The article uses incorrect terminology ("public domain" when "eminent domain" is meant, though it uses the correct term later). The article sets up strawmen, like the politicians who denounce property rights, without ever quoting any politicians as actually denouncing property rights. The article tries to position Columbia University as a big bad meanie, only catering to the rich and wealthy; while Columbia is a large institution with considerable resources, it is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and while it does have many rich and well connected students, it also provides need-based scholarships so that anyone who gets in will be able to afford it regardless of their financial status. For many less well-off students, top tier and Ivy-league schools can be more affordable than lower tier or state schools, as there is much more need-based financial aid available. Now, I disagree strongly with eminent domain being used to buy land and resell it to private for-profit developers. For an educational non-profit like Columbia, it's more of a grey zone. Using language like "seize" and implying that Columbia is a big rich bully doesn't really help to clarify this situation.

meterplech 16y ago
Why- Columbia is a big rich bully in this situation. Sure, they are a non-profit, but they have a 6.5 Billion dollar endowment that they are using to lawyer up and kick people out of their land. And, the article is right to note that the people who mostly benefit from this are the mostly affluent students and professors at Columbia. Yes, they are paying them "fair value," how would you feel if someone supposedly wanted to use your startup/company/car and decided took it while giving you an amount they determine as appropriate? This is a slippery slope that shouldn't be encouraged.
- nostromo 16y ago
  I have to disagree. My own sense is that it has become impossible for the US to complete publicly-beneficial projects anymore. You see it in many cities that want high-speed rail or simple public transit. These projects have become unaffordable. Why? Not because of the labor or materials cost, but because every piece of land needed for such a project will require a protracted legal battle spanning many years in order to squeeze money from the government and determine a "fair value" that in the end is usually very inflated. I think the US could find itself in a very sorry situation if we remain paralyzed when it comes to building publicly beneficial infrastructure. Meanwhile China (who I am loathe to imitate) is building itself into the 21st century overnight, while we litigate for years (or decades) over the abandoned lot or corner gas-station that was in the way of something that provides much more value to the public.

forgotAgain 16y ago

A couple of things that are left out of the story: - The area in question is blighted. This isn't an old area like SoHo is old. Think of the worst images of New York City from forty years ago. Think of the Charles Bronson vigilante movies from the 1970's. - If you've been to a top school in the past few years you know that they've been involved in an arms race of building facilities. If you want to be a top university in this country you need to be able to attract the top faculty and students. You need the infrastructure. In NYC this is almost impossible given the cost of real estate and overcrowding. Columbia isn't doing this as a capricious act. It needs to expand if it is going to survive as a premier university. This isn't being done to build luxury dorms for rich undergrads. This is being done to provide new research and teaching facilities so that a two hundred fifty year old university can continue into the future. - The businesses in question are the last in the area. Over the last ten years or so there has been a lot of back and forth between the university and its surrounding neighborhood. Some of it Columbia should be very embarrassed (perhaps even ashamed about) but after much squabbling the businesses in the article are the last holdouts. There is a lot being given back to the community by Columbia to make up for taking a larger part of the neighborhood. This includes cash payments, new schools, new community centers and housing for those displaced. - The businesses in question were offered payment much in excess of what their properties are worth. The warehouse company was also offered a swap for real estate in a much more desirable location in the area. It agreed to the swap and then reneged on the deal. The situation sucks but it's the world we live in. It's almost impossible for an institution to grow in the center of a major urban area. At the same time those institutions must grow if the urban area is to remain vibrant for its citizens going into the future. All things considered I think Columbia has been getting a raw deal in the condemnations like the one in the NY Post. It's easy pickings for the paper to rile up it's readers but in the end it only hurts the city as a whole. I'm not part of Columbia but my wife is an alumni and my daughter is a current student there.

bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
> It needs to expand if it is going to survive as a premier university. How is it in the public's interest that Columbia be a premier university? If their top faculty leaves to teach elsewhere, they'll still be teaching. Students will receive their educations. Columbia does worse, other schools do better. No net loss.