| What business is there in DC that would have been there if the Federal Government were not? ML/NJ
|
Posted on 08/07/2005 11:29:34 PM PDT by Cougar66
WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge cleared the way for the District of Columbia to take control of the land it needs to build a baseball stadium. U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts rejected a request by property owners for a 30-day injunction that would have prevented the city from buying or seizing 33 properties on the proposed site along the Anacostia River.
And for the most Frivlous reasons of all.
What the hell is wrong with RFK? Hasn't it sat idle for long enough?
DC is a tiny little place, created for the purpose of housing the federal government. It doesn't need a baseball stadium.
DC is just as entitled to a Baseball stadium as any other city, but they already have one. DC stadium. If they want sky boxes put them on.
Having said that those businesse they are displacing ar mostly gaybars and displacing them is doing the city a favor.
The part where they are going to build the stadium is one of the most blighted parts of the town. It basically has one industry; the sex industry, as well as a few warehouses.
ping
ooh, do you think they will get the sympathy vote from SCOTUS?
Like what?
Brothels and bars? What business is there in DC that would have been there if the Federal Government were not?
ML/NJ
DC is just as entitled to a Baseball stadium as any other city, but they already have one. DC stadium. If they want sky boxes put them on.
Having said that those businesse they are displacing ar mostly gaybars and displacing them is doing the city a favor.
When players play for free, owners are nonprofits and tickets are next to nothing then it might pass the smell test to take private property for a stadium.
| What business is there in DC that would have been there if the Federal Government were not? ML/NJ
|
RFK is a great baseball stadium - it just lacks the number of expensive luxury boxes that corporations buy. Those boxes are where a team makes all the money.
Baseball is the national idol, I guess.
And if you do live there, but don't want your tax money to fund the stadium, you're screwed.
Easy to say when it's not your home that's being siezed for it. Sounds like a typical Washington Welfare attitude - "You got it, I want it, gimme."
Nobody's home is being seized for the ballpark.
Consider as well I'm a Freeper... I don't think I'm a liberal. But I do live near and work in this city and I was born here, so I know a little bit about this place.
No city should be "entitled" to a baseball stadium.
And, for the most part, the Stadiums are owned by the billionaire owners.
No reason why the Taxpayers should fund the construction of a place of employment for a Private business.
I don't care if a private home was seized or not. If private property was seized from one individual and given to another, that's just plain wrong.
What right do y'all have to have a baseball stadium,that trumps the property owners' rights to not have their property siezed?
I'll take it with a grain of salt when you say:
Consider as well I'm a Freeper... I don't think I'm a liberal. But I do live near and work in this city and I was born here, so I know a little bit about this place.
Three months at least indicates you haven't been zotted as a DU plant, but I find the statement about not thinking you're a liberal interesting - don't you know what you are? I'll have to see more of your posts, then maybe I can help you figure it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Air conditioning repair. Mosquito abatement. De-humidifiers. To name just a few.