2 ms·
It would be nice if cities established redevelopment funds, which admittedly would have to be substantial, to properly buy out homeowners and redevelop large tr
by 01100011 6y ago
It would be nice if cities established redevelopment funds, which admittedly would have to be substantial, to properly buy out homeowners and redevelop large tracts of land. The sort of piece meal, plot-by-plot redevelopment that is possible today is just not sufficient to allow for the kinds of redesign that are needed to remake cities.
Buying out existing homeowners reduces concerns about the externalities of densification. Pay them a fair price for their property and the inconvenience/trauma of relocation and then get on with making a truly livable, dense, efficient city.
That all assumes a government is even capable of predicting future trends(will retail die? will the next generation flee the city? will mfg jobs return? etc). But if we're going to play that game, lets play it competently.
- nip180 6y agoI’m generally against eminent domain in the case that land is being forcibly purchased from one private party and sold to another private party. I’m against it because of its very high abuse potential. Property rights are essential in keeping society civil. Sure, I pay taxes and give up some of my property in order to provide common good. I’m happy to pay for schools and roads. Sure, maybe the government will need to build a highway over my property, I understand it needs a mechanism to do this for the public good. However, if the government forces me to sell to a private party I’m concerned that the reason will be less about public good and more about enriching the private party. It opens up the government to legitimate ethics concerns. It makes people begin to feel cheated out of their property. This is bad for society as a whole.