4 ms·
All long-distance transport construction requires "confiscating" land. Somehow it's completely routine to take huge swathes of land for freeway widening, but bu
by lmm 2y ago
All long-distance transport construction requires "confiscating" land. Somehow it's completely routine to take huge swathes of land for freeway widening, but build one little train line and everyone loses their minds.
- travoc 2y agoWhy is "confiscating" in quotes? Is that not exactly what eminent domain takings are?
- llamaimperative 2y agoYou generally don’t get paid ~market rate for confiscations.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoThe constitution says the government cant confiscate anything without due process, so not sure why thats relevant.
- llamaimperative 2y agoEminent domain is considered due process
- HDThoreaun 2y agoEminent domain requires paying market rate
- llamaimperative 2y agoWhich… was my first point.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoYou said you don’t get market rate.
- llamaimperative 2y agoI was saying that you get paid approximately market rate, which makes it obviously not merely "confiscation", ergo using scare quotes "confiscation" to describe eminent domain is pretty reasonable.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lmm 2y agoI take the view that land is not chattel and they should not be conflated.
- starik36 2y agoThat is not exactly the case. In Los Angeles, the 710 freeway was abandoned due to people losing their minds over the eminent domain shenanigans. https://imgur.com/inSyTTV https://imgur.com/inSyTTV
- throwup238 2y agoIt was abandoned because they made the mistake of trying to build it through South Pasadena which is very wealthy and full of politically connected old money families that didn't want anything to do with that kind of traffic. They dragged Caltrans through decades of lawsuits and Caltrans spent who knows how many millions on property in the area so I don't know if eminent domain was really an option, at least not in the 21st century. Their last ditch attempt was going to be a tunnel that cost >$1 billion per mile but the city shut that down fast too, even though it wouldn't have required seizing any land. Source: South Pasadena is my home town and I left shortly after Caltrans officially gave up. The year after Caltrans dropped the project altogether, a massive chunk of the city's budget was reallocated back to the schools and roads which made a huge difference to the infrastructure.
- parineum 2y agoIs the solution to build things through poorer neighborhoods where people still feel exactly the same but can't stand up for themselves? The issue wasn't that they tried to put the freeway where someone didn't want it because nobody wants a freeway nextdoor, the issue is they tried to force it upon people who could fight back.
- throwup238 2y ago> Is the solution to build things through poorer neighborhoods where people still feel exactly the same but can't stand up for themselves? Pretty much. The history of US highway construction is full of politicians using freeways to bulldoze and split poor communities. That's how the euphemism "urban renewal" got its name.
- skissane 2y ago
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThere is a pretty substantial difference between eminent domaining the land required for rail, and taking much more than necessary so that the state can flip it for a profit.
- danw1979 2y agoYou could stretch the definition of “required” here to include the land required for housing development to fund the railway ? The railway is a common good, and the housing development profits are just a means to those ends.
- lmm 2y agoMoney is fungible, it's pretty unreasonable to say that a given housing development is required because the state needs money to fund a railway. They could raise taxes or what have you. (My preferred solution would be land value tax, which would make the railway self-funding, but that's a bigger argument).
- fragmede 2y agothere is also a difference between "much more to flip for profit" and "a reasonable amount to sustainability run a railway system". People don't want to pay more taxes, so having a self sufficient system would be preferable one to one that constantly requires taxpayer funding.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoTaxes or fares are a sustainable ways to run a railway system. It isnt about sustainability, it is about who pays, and the public not wanting to pay for something you use isnt a good enough reason size private property from a small number of individuals. By that logic, we could do away with taxes entirely if the state simply confiscated everything it needed form select individuals.
- fragmede 2y ago
- SkyPuncher 2y agoMany freeways are simply expanding into existing right of way. Technically private property, but also already shared, public space.