4 ms·

Find #31 "Radio Row". this is where you could buy vacuum tubes and anything electronic from a local concentration of shops that carried all that. It was taken

Find #31 "Radio Row". this is where you could buy vacuum tubes and anything electronic from a local concentration of shops that carried all that. It was taken over by eminent domain to make way for building the World Trade Center.

pavlov 3y ago
Colson Whitehead’s novel “Harlem Shuffle” takes place partially on Radio Row pre-WTC.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  Reminding me of Woody Allen's "Radio Days".
LeanderK 3y ago
how could eminent domain have been used to make place for the world trade center? Wasn't it just offices?
- lonelygirl15a 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London "[The Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >"[The Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." That case is from 2005. IIRC (and I did see it under construction) the WTC was built in the late 1960s/early 1970s, so I'm not sure how relevant that case might be. Were there any lawsuits regarding eminent domain over the building of the WTC prior to its construction? I have no idea, but the 2005 case wouldn't even be relevant to the rebuild after 9/11.
    - lonelygirl15a 3y ago
      Such takings of property under eminent domain had happened before; it was not a new idea in 2005. This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued.
      - nobody9999 3y ago
        >Such takings of property under eminent domain had happened before; it was not a new idea in 2005. >This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued. You're absolutely correct. GP wondered aloud if eminent domain was warranted for access to the WTC site and if that wasn't related to the 2005 case cited. I merely pointed out that since WTC was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s that that case cited was irrelevant to that question, as it was built 50 years before that case (not to mention that any rebuilding after 9/11 was still before the cited case was decided). That case wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Was it rightly decided? I don't have all the facts and IANAL, so I don't know. I wouldn't want the state to take my property if I didn't want to sell, although as I understand it, in the 2005 case, the plaintiff was offered fair-market value for their property. Not saying that nullifies the plaintiff's complaint (being forced to sell when they don't wish to do so), nor do I necessarily (again, IANAL and don't know the facts of the case) agree with the court's ruling. That said, the case cited was irrelevant to the question of whether or not eminent domain was used properly in obtaining access to the property used as the site for the WTC.

pavlov 3y ago

Colson Whitehead’s novel “Harlem Shuffle” takes place partially on Radio Row pre-WTC.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
Reminding me of Woody Allen's "Radio Days".

LeanderK 3y ago

how could eminent domain have been used to make place for the world trade center? Wasn't it just offices?

lonelygirl15a 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London "[The Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >"[The Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." That case is from 2005. IIRC (and I did see it under construction) the WTC was built in the late 1960s/early 1970s, so I'm not sure how relevant that case might be. Were there any lawsuits regarding eminent domain over the building of the WTC prior to its construction? I have no idea, but the 2005 case wouldn't even be relevant to the rebuild after 9/11.
  - lonelygirl15a 3y ago
    Such takings of property under eminent domain had happened before; it was not a new idea in 2005. This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >Such takings of property under eminent domain had happened before; it was not a new idea in 2005. >This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued. You're absolutely correct. GP wondered aloud if eminent domain was warranted for access to the WTC site and if that wasn't related to the 2005 case cited. I merely pointed out that since WTC was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s that that case cited was irrelevant to that question, as it was built 50 years before that case (not to mention that any rebuilding after 9/11 was still before the cited case was decided). That case wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Was it rightly decided? I don't have all the facts and IANAL, so I don't know. I wouldn't want the state to take my property if I didn't want to sell, although as I understand it, in the 2005 case, the plaintiff was offered fair-market value for their property. Not saying that nullifies the plaintiff's complaint (being forced to sell when they don't wish to do so), nor do I necessarily (again, IANAL and don't know the facts of the case) agree with the court's ruling. That said, the case cited was irrelevant to the question of whether or not eminent domain was used properly in obtaining access to the property used as the site for the WTC.