What are you trying to say?
That Columbia will improve the area?
No one's disagreeing with that.
People just didn't want to see the whole area-each and every single building, every single lot turned over to Columbia and to be used only for their purposes. That's the issue.
I want to see Columbia grow and expand but the way they are doing it right now just isn't the best way for them (eventhough they don't realize it right now) and Manhattanville.
Don't get me wrong, czsz. I want Columbia to build their Manhattanville campus. I just want them to do it on the properties they bought rightfully, without the use of eminent domain. If they do, I'm sure we will be hearing of more and more developments like the one you posted. And, I'm willing to bet, some of those auto shops you loath so much will eventually be replaced with more campus friendly businesses. It just takes time, but the area will gentrify quickly.
That's why I'm arguing that seizure of the properties won't necessarily have a more detrimental effect on their ability to stay in business in the area. Why hinder the holistic development of the campus now when those businesses are bound to turn over when embedded in an awkwardly reconfigured campus anyway?And, I'm willing to bet, some of those auto shops you loath so much will eventually be replaced with more campus friendly businesses. It just takes time, but the area will gentrify quickly.
What you consider as awkward is what makes the neighborhood more interesting.
Because property owners have the right to decide for themselves what to do with their properties and when to do it. It's not up to Columbia to decide for them.Originally Posted by czsz
{yawn} we've been at this point before.
Look, I've outlined why eminent domain is justified theoretically. I've noted why it's beneficial in this case. And now I've shown that the harms are not necessarily greater than those that would come about anyway. The only difference is that propertyowners not forced out now will be later- due to the sheer inoperability of an auto repair shop in a campus environment. I don't see why Columbia should have to build around these people when their departure is imminent anyway. President Bollinger is adamant that only the campus in full can solve Columbia's space issues and maintain its attractiveness to top academic talent- why should it be compromised in order to accomodate intransigent stragglers insistent on maintaining the ground that is merely- slowly -slipping out from under them?
You've outlined why Columbia wants to use eminent domain, but you've yet to make the case that it is justified. The property owners will not be forced out later. They might choose to sell or redevelop, but that is their decision to make. That doesn't show that "the harms are not necessarily greater than those that would come about anyway".
Calling them intransigent stragglers doesn't bolster you case either.
to follow this logic ...
Eventually we're all going to die (YOUR departure IS imminent, at least in the context of the historical timeline), so let's allow the government to take your property away from you NOW.
Lol. That's because you keep bringing us back to point one.
The real problem with this dispute is that, while I continually attempt to introduce new arguments, they continue to come up against the operative logic on your side- that there is a fundamental and inalienable right to property, in any case. The Supreme Court has provided an argument as to why this is not so, as have I, yet you each continue to act as if it's ridiculous to even consider such a concept. I challenge you to justify this rather than merely maintain it as an assumption.
Cz is right.
They are both right.
The case for Eminent Domain must be viewed from a legal perspective. I don't think the criteria is met here.
However, this area of Manhattanville is not a cohesive neighborhood. Eminent Domain here would not have the same impact as in the case of the Cross Bronx Expwy, and in theory, Eminent Domain would fairly compensate the property owners.
Property rights have never been inalienable.
The Supreme Court case was specific to a city that had established the intent through its local regulations to re-develop a certain area consisting of private properties for the development of a plan by a private developer that would enrich the local coffers. The SC merely backed the right of that specific locality to allow the "taking" of private property for this purpose.
To make this comparable in NYC you first would have to get the City government to create the situation whereby private property could be taken for the use of private developer (in this case Columbia).
You might want to spend less time talking about it here and instead start lobbying for the changes necessary to make such a "taking" come to pass.
Good luck!!
Apples and oranges. The only thing the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) was that the United States Constitution does not expressly prohibit all public takings of private property for private use, where there is still some demonstrable public benefit. (The language of the document itself would seem to suggest otherwise, but I digress.) That ruling is really not relevant to the discussion here, which is not about Constitutional jurisprudence but about urban planning and public policy. I have no doubt that, if Columbia is able to convince the City of New York to take private properties under eminent domain in Manhattanville, that action will be upheld in the Courts, just like all of Robert Moses' destructive redevelopment projects were upheld. But that does not make it the right thing to do.
Are you claiming that the law in this case is immoral? However specific the Supreme Court's ruling is, its underlying presumption was that utilitarian morality- the provision of benefit for the greatest number- trumped the rights of the few. Moreso than the mall or hotel or whatever was built in Connecticut (I forget), Columbia's development will advance such a summam bonum. Are you taking a stance against utilitarianism? What's more, against a utilitarianism the greatest harm of which to the minority parties is that their physical property becomes replaced with cash?But that does not make it the right thing to do.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks