4 ms·

Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold. > The people whose land was tak

Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold. > The people whose land was taken reacted with disbelief, sorrow, anger. That land might have been in their families for generations, might have been the family’s sole support, might have been the only home they’d ever known. The city decreed and mobilized and condemned properties for seizure without asking residents’ permission; found all sorts of legal subterfuges for denying the value of their fields and homesteads as established by expert witnesses; lowballed every estimate; treated them with distant contempt. Since the politicians and commissioners were not running for office upstate, they felt no need to package their enterprise as a humanitarian mission; they spoke in numbers and legal precedents. Do you think this is acceptable conduct if it was in the service of procuring food for city people, or people in a country that was a net importer of food?

iguy 6y ago
I'm sure it sucked to be the guy whose land was taken. And I'm unsurprised that it wasn't done with maximum tact and local sensitivity. But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built. Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. The point of the article is to question whether "our civilization" is worth treating people this way, or whether it would be better to craft a different civilization that treated people better.

iguy 6y ago

I'm sure it sucked to be the guy whose land was taken. And I'm unsurprised that it wasn't done with maximum tact and local sensitivity. But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built. Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. The point of the article is to question whether "our civilization" is worth treating people this way, or whether it would be better to craft a different civilization that treated people better.