3 ms·
> It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control
by jjav 4y ago
> It's an enormous country and those people should feel free to hit the bricks (they can move, in other words). Or, hey, this is America. If you want to control what happens on a piece of private property, then buy it.
Those two sentences are contradictory.
If someone owns a plot of land with a single family home, they do get to control it by staying put living in the house they like. They don't have to "hit the bricks" just because you'd prefer to tear it down to build a highrise.
- dionidium 4y ago> They don't have to "hit the bricks" just because you'd prefer to tear it down to build a highrise. Do you think I'm talking about eminent domain, or something? I am not. I can't build a highrise on their property unless they let me. They're going to have to voluntarily sell me the land before I can do anything with it. I'm not proposing anything except that they be allowed to do that, if they wish to. They don't have to do anything.
- foobarian 4y agoThere is a loophole there. I can buy up a lot of land, and sublet parcels to tenants under strict covenants. This is me doing what I want with my private property. Fast forward a century and you have a bunch of large communes owned by trusts dictating zoning. I.e. towns and cities.