Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
EconProf
ParticipantThe trailer park that juts into Mission Bay is the City’s land, and I’d just like to see property rights enforced here. The City (us) should have the right to decide what to do with the land–whether making it into a park for all of us, or selling it for a princely sum to a developer, thus also (supposedly) benefiting us taxpayers.
I’m sure a lively community discussion would follow the City’s gaining control of its land as to how it could/should be used. The point is that a few tenants who lucked out decades ago should not continue to thwart the needs of the broader public.
This isn’t really connected to eminent domain, but to property rights of owners. We are all the owners, indirectly, of this land.ParticipantThe trailer park that juts into Mission Bay is the City’s land, and I’d just like to see property rights enforced here. The City (us) should have the right to decide what to do with the land–whether making it into a park for all of us, or selling it for a princely sum to a developer, thus also (supposedly) benefiting us taxpayers.
I’m sure a lively community discussion would follow the City’s gaining control of its land as to how it could/should be used. The point is that a few tenants who lucked out decades ago should not continue to thwart the needs of the broader public.
This isn’t really connected to eminent domain, but to property rights of owners. We are all the owners, indirectly, of this land.ParticipantThe trailer park that juts into Mission Bay is the City’s land, and I’d just like to see property rights enforced here. The City (us) should have the right to decide what to do with the land–whether making it into a park for all of us, or selling it for a princely sum to a developer, thus also (supposedly) benefiting us taxpayers.
I’m sure a lively community discussion would follow the City’s gaining control of its land as to how it could/should be used. The point is that a few tenants who lucked out decades ago should not continue to thwart the needs of the broader public.
This isn’t really connected to eminent domain, but to property rights of owners. We are all the owners, indirectly, of this land.ParticipantRicechex: 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.ParticipantRicechex: 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.ParticipantRicechex: 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.ParticipantRicechex: 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.ParticipantRicechex: 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.ParticipantBusinesses and heavily-taxed families are leaving CA not only due to current economic and political realities, but for what they see in our future. Demographic, political, and economic trends simply look worse here than the states they are moving to.
Given the cost of living here and the inefficiencies of our union-dominated government, employers and the middle-class run the numbers and make their long-term plans to leave. They witness Sacramento’s liberal tilt and see little reason for improvement in areas of taxes, silly regulations, utility costs (which are about to really leap upward), schools and universities, and rationally plot their departure. For many, their depressed home values are only postponing their move out.ParticipantBusinesses and heavily-taxed families are leaving CA not only due to current economic and political realities, but for what they see in our future. Demographic, political, and economic trends simply look worse here than the states they are moving to.
Given the cost of living here and the inefficiencies of our union-dominated government, employers and the middle-class run the numbers and make their long-term plans to leave. They witness Sacramento’s liberal tilt and see little reason for improvement in areas of taxes, silly regulations, utility costs (which are about to really leap upward), schools and universities, and rationally plot their departure. For many, their depressed home values are only postponing their move out.ParticipantBusinesses and heavily-taxed families are leaving CA not only due to current economic and political realities, but for what they see in our future. Demographic, political, and economic trends simply look worse here than the states they are moving to.
Given the cost of living here and the inefficiencies of our union-dominated government, employers and the middle-class run the numbers and make their long-term plans to leave. They witness Sacramento’s liberal tilt and see little reason for improvement in areas of taxes, silly regulations, utility costs (which are about to really leap upward), schools and universities, and rationally plot their departure. For many, their depressed home values are only postponing their move out.ParticipantBusinesses and heavily-taxed families are leaving CA not only due to current economic and political realities, but for what they see in our future. Demographic, political, and economic trends simply look worse here than the states they are moving to.
Given the cost of living here and the inefficiencies of our union-dominated government, employers and the middle-class run the numbers and make their long-term plans to leave. They witness Sacramento’s liberal tilt and see little reason for improvement in areas of taxes, silly regulations, utility costs (which are about to really leap upward), schools and universities, and rationally plot their departure. For many, their depressed home values are only postponing their move out.ParticipantBusinesses and heavily-taxed families are leaving CA not only due to current economic and political realities, but for what they see in our future. Demographic, political, and economic trends simply look worse here than the states they are moving to.
Given the cost of living here and the inefficiencies of our union-dominated government, employers and the middle-class run the numbers and make their long-term plans to leave. They witness Sacramento’s liberal tilt and see little reason for improvement in areas of taxes, silly regulations, utility costs (which are about to really leap upward), schools and universities, and rationally plot their departure. For many, their depressed home values are only postponing their move out.ParticipantJim Grant has a long and envied reputation of being right. His lengthy article is detailed and persuasive. Most of all, I like it because it is well-grounded in history and facts.
One of his key points relevant to today’s cycle is that the bigger the fall, the bigger the recovery. He doesn’t quite promise a v-shaped recovery, but comes close to it. His point that the decline contains the seeds of the recovery is compelling. Those seeds today include inventory replenishment, bargain-hunting at today’s lower prices, and fiscal and monetary stimulus.
It is getting harder and harder to argue this economy has another leg down what with the stock market bounce-back, the clear green shoots in the housing market, and the repair of credit markets evidenced by narrowing spreads. -
AuthorPosts
