3 ms·
It's probably for the better. It generally just gets used on people who lack the resources to fight back. It just doesn't sit well with me that a government can
by xeromal 4y ago
It's probably for the better. It generally just gets used on people who lack the resources to fight back. It just doesn't sit well with me that a government can force you to sell your land at a price they determine.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoExactly. The more justified infrastructure use cases of the 20th century gave way to "economic development" crap where the city takes land it thinks the current owner isn't using effectively enough and then sells it to their cronies who promise to build a strip mall or a mixed use development or whatever (and some number of useful idiots support it because they like the idea of more taxable commerce). The government has zero business stomping on people to do the latter. Just buy the F-ing land outright the normal way if that's what you want to do.
- timmg 4y ago> It's probably for the better. Until you want to build a train line (or some other form of public transportation).
- rootusrootus 4y agoI don't disagree, but there are ramifications. A big one being sprawl. If existing urban/suburban areas are to remain stagnant, then development will just push outward into areas where land is cheap and landowners more than happy to pocket a nice chunk for their former farmland. Wrap an urban growth boundary around the city, and then you can stop some of that and instead watch your housing prices skyrocket. Wait a second, I think I just described Portland.