3 ms·

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

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.
tptacek 16y ago
Columbia has apparently purchased the overwhelming majority of the land needed for this project on the private market. They didn't simply decide to "lawyer up and kick people out of their land" (also, for what it's worth, the "land" in question was a largely abandoned warehouse district). The appeal to personal feelings is also misguided. How would I feel if the State of Illinois decided that a new light rail project should run right through my house? Very, very bad! Burn the witches! But that's a textbook case of eminent domain, not an abuse; the only way to argue against it is to enter into a very unproductive argument about whether all eminent domain claims are abusive. I disagree with Columbia in this case; the doctrine that says eminent domain comes into play simply because the benificiary can make the property more productive is unsettling. But it's still incumbent on us to make valid arguments.

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.

tptacek 16y ago

Columbia has apparently purchased the overwhelming majority of the land needed for this project on the private market. They didn't simply decide to "lawyer up and kick people out of their land" (also, for what it's worth, the "land" in question was a largely abandoned warehouse district). The appeal to personal feelings is also misguided. How would I feel if the State of Illinois decided that a new light rail project should run right through my house? Very, very bad! Burn the witches! But that's a textbook case of eminent domain, not an abuse; the only way to argue against it is to enter into a very unproductive argument about whether all eminent domain claims are abusive. I disagree with Columbia in this case; the doctrine that says eminent domain comes into play simply because the benificiary can make the property more productive is unsettling. But it's still incumbent on us to make valid arguments.