5 ms·

It is not nearly complete https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/wisconsin-foxconn-factory-residents-displaced https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202

by harikb 6y ago

It is not nearly complete https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/wisconsin-foxconn-factory-residents-displaced https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/wisconsin-fo... > The village notified her subdivision’s residents that it would use eminent domain to seize their homes if they didn’t accept a relocation offer. Projects started using eminent domain and destroying lives rarely succeed

neartheplain 6y ago
> Projects started using eminent domain and destroying lives rarely succeed Is there data on this? I’ve heard the opposite from admirers of more authoritarian governments, which “get things done” in part by moving quickly because they don’t have to deal with eminent domain proceedings.
- Proven 6y ago
  That's what the NYT and admirers of central planning want us to believe.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- duxup 6y ago
  By its nature if an authoritarian gov wants a thing done it happens to some extent, how much you hear about failures is also likely to be limited at that point. They have the possibility of doing things quickly, but also by its nature they aren't subject to much transparency, review, criticism, or accurately reporting results.... thus they really don't even have to be very good or fair about it ...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  I know the Supreme Court case that opened the gates to these shenanigans (Kelo v. City of New London) back in 2005 ended similarly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London Pfizer wanted the land and said they would create jobs and give the state more tax revenue, the state said "well that sounds like 'public use' to us," seized the land, bulldozed the houses, wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, and then Pfizer picked up and moved out of town. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html Nothing was built and the property where the homes were demolished still sits vacant: https://www.theday.com/section/specialreports&Profile=1268 https://www.theday.com/section/specialreports&Profile=1268
  - dhritzkiv 6y ago
    I learned about Kelo v. City of New London from the 5-4 podcast[1] (a progressive slanted podcast analyzing bad/controversial Supreme Court cases). Interestingly, it was one of the few cases covered on the podcast where the 'liberals' on the court decided the case. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kelo-v-new-london/id1497785843?i=1000472153479 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kelo-v-new-london/id14...
- aidenn0 6y ago
  That's largely because the authoritarian governments have stronger controls over the press; trumpeting their successes and hiding their failures. Mussolini didn't actually make the trains run on time; he only convinced people he did.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Some authoritarian governments can actually get things done, by taking responsibility and doing the stuff that needs doing. Others, such as Mussolini's, just use the authority to give fat contracts to corporations they have friends in and aestheticize the solution. It's a real risk.
  - blackoil 6y ago
    As a tourist, Singapore seems to be highly efficient.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I feel like we're focused on the wrong axis. To me it is is less about authoritarian versus non-authoritarian as much as competent versus incompetent. Although in Wisconsin's case no credits were given to Foxconn (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/foxconn-not-expected-to-receive-state-tax-credits-over-next-3-years/article_baf42b60-49cb-5816-9e8b-ee7a33ada1e8.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/foxconn...), the state did pursue a number of improvements to roads and infrastructure that were not appropriately tied to the agreements with Foxconn. The contract should have clearly required reimbursement (to the state, and by proxy, to affected citizens) if the project were to be canceled. The deal they had forged had bad return on investment and for it to break even would have required an enormous period of time (https://reason.com/2020/10/20/wisconsins-foxconn-boondoggle-looks-worse-than-ever/ https://reason.com/2020/10/20/wisconsins-foxconn-boondoggle-...). Compare this to NYC/NY State's now-cancelled but well structured deal for Amazon, where they stood to make a 9:1 return on investment, with only $505m in capital outlays for the public, and that itself was tied to a minimum $3b investment from Amazon, with projected new revenue of $28 billion for the city and state over 25 years (https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-queens-long-island-city-explained https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-que...). NY gets a lot of flak for mismanagement on other fronts (for example transit infrastructure) but they were able to select the right incentives, terms, and conditions to create a highly favorable subsidy deal that wouldn't have left them high and dry if the company changed direction. My conclusion from all this being - it doesn't make sense to demonize either subsidies or eminent domain or whatever else, as much as it does to just demand competence.
  - rat87 6y ago
    We should be extremely critical of the sweetheart corporate giveaways and if the Amazon project had gone forward I'm sure it would have had more then it's share of reality not living up to promises. It's easy for politicians and companies to make nice PR statements about theoretical jobs that will be created but reality frequently doesn't live up to it These sort of subsidizes should be banned. Cities should complete on infrastructure and we'll educated work force not giveaways
    - 6y ago

by harikb 6y ago

neartheplain 6y ago

> Projects started using eminent domain and destroying lives rarely succeed Is there data on this? I’ve heard the opposite from admirers of more authoritarian governments, which “get things done” in part by moving quickly because they don’t have to deal with eminent domain proceedings.

Proven 6y ago
That's what the NYT and admirers of central planning want us to believe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
duxup 6y ago
By its nature if an authoritarian gov wants a thing done it happens to some extent, how much you hear about failures is also likely to be limited at that point. They have the possibility of doing things quickly, but also by its nature they aren't subject to much transparency, review, criticism, or accurately reporting results.... thus they really don't even have to be very good or fair about it ...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
wlesieutre 6y ago
I know the Supreme Court case that opened the gates to these shenanigans (Kelo v. City of New London) back in 2005 ended similarly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London Pfizer wanted the land and said they would create jobs and give the state more tax revenue, the state said "well that sounds like 'public use' to us," seized the land, bulldozed the houses, wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, and then Pfizer picked up and moved out of town. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html Nothing was built and the property where the homes were demolished still sits vacant: https://www.theday.com/section/specialreports&Profile=1268 https://www.theday.com/section/specialreports&Profile=1268
- dhritzkiv 6y ago
  I learned about Kelo v. City of New London from the 5-4 podcast[1] (a progressive slanted podcast analyzing bad/controversial Supreme Court cases). Interestingly, it was one of the few cases covered on the podcast where the 'liberals' on the court decided the case. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kelo-v-new-london/id1497785843?i=1000472153479 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kelo-v-new-london/id14...
aidenn0 6y ago
That's largely because the authoritarian governments have stronger controls over the press; trumpeting their successes and hiding their failures. Mussolini didn't actually make the trains run on time; he only convinced people he did.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Some authoritarian governments can actually get things done, by taking responsibility and doing the stuff that needs doing. Others, such as Mussolini's, just use the authority to give fat contracts to corporations they have friends in and aestheticize the solution. It's a real risk.
- blackoil 6y ago
  As a tourist, Singapore seems to be highly efficient.
throwawaysea 6y ago
I feel like we're focused on the wrong axis. To me it is is less about authoritarian versus non-authoritarian as much as competent versus incompetent. Although in Wisconsin's case no credits were given to Foxconn (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/foxconn-not-expected-to-receive-state-tax-credits-over-next-3-years/article_baf42b60-49cb-5816-9e8b-ee7a33ada1e8.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/foxconn...), the state did pursue a number of improvements to roads and infrastructure that were not appropriately tied to the agreements with Foxconn. The contract should have clearly required reimbursement (to the state, and by proxy, to affected citizens) if the project were to be canceled. The deal they had forged had bad return on investment and for it to break even would have required an enormous period of time (https://reason.com/2020/10/20/wisconsins-foxconn-boondoggle-looks-worse-than-ever/ https://reason.com/2020/10/20/wisconsins-foxconn-boondoggle-...). Compare this to NYC/NY State's now-cancelled but well structured deal for Amazon, where they stood to make a 9:1 return on investment, with only $505m in capital outlays for the public, and that itself was tied to a minimum $3b investment from Amazon, with projected new revenue of $28 billion for the city and state over 25 years (https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-queens-long-island-city-explained https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-que...). NY gets a lot of flak for mismanagement on other fronts (for example transit infrastructure) but they were able to select the right incentives, terms, and conditions to create a highly favorable subsidy deal that wouldn't have left them high and dry if the company changed direction. My conclusion from all this being - it doesn't make sense to demonize either subsidies or eminent domain or whatever else, as much as it does to just demand competence.
- rat87 6y ago
  We should be extremely critical of the sweetheart corporate giveaways and if the Amazon project had gone forward I'm sure it would have had more then it's share of reality not living up to promises. It's easy for politicians and companies to make nice PR statements about theoretical jobs that will be created but reality frequently doesn't live up to it These sort of subsidizes should be banned. Cities should complete on infrastructure and we'll educated work force not giveaways
  - 6y ago