OT: Eminent Domain

[Ricechex]

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

[sdgrrl]

I also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.

I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.

[sdgrrl]

I also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.

I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.

[sdgrrl]

I also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.

I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.

[sdgrrl]

I also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.

I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.

[sdgrrl]

I also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.

I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]

Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.

That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.

To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.

Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]

Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.

That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.

To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.

Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]

Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.

That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.

To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.

Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]

Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.

That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.

To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.

Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]

Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.

That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.

To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.

Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?

[EconProf]

Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.

[EconProf]

Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.

[EconProf]

Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.

[EconProf]

Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.

[Author]

Posts