Posted on 05/23/2002 4:31:24 AM PDT by chambley1
Yes, and this is surely headed for one of those abuses. Note that the threat of eminent domain is not being made to turn private property into public property, but is merely requiring the transfer of private property from one private company to another.
if the owners did not sell the property to a development organization specializing in low-income housing.
...
Last week the Arlington County Board allocated $500,000 to the Arlington Housing Corporation Inc. (AHC) — a private, nonprofit developer of low- and moderate-income housing — to acquire the complex from Hall Financial Group for about $35 million.
What is thought of this use of eminent domain?
The case is the first filed by the newly opened Arizona Chapter of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, which litigates nationwide in support of property rights, school choice, economic liberty and free speech. The Institute has successfully fought abuses of eminent domain in high-profile cases in Atlantic City, N.J., and Pittsburgh, Pa., and continues to litigate against that abuse in Connecticut, New York and Mississippi. In 1998, the Institute successfully prevented the State of New Jersey’s efforts to take a private home and businesses to give them to casino owner Donald Trump for a limousine parking lot.
The Arizona Constitution states, "Private property shall not be taken for private use. . . ." In recent years, the Arizona Legislature has expanded the concept of "public use" to encompass economic redevelopment. Cities such as Mesa and Scottsdale have wielded the power broadly to take homes and businesses and give them to politically powerful developers.
"Sadly, this is another example of a city destroying small businesses," observed Zeitlin, an experienced condemnation lawyer with the firm Zeitlin & Zeitlin in Phoenix who serves as co-counsel in this case. In another case, Zeitlin represents a motel owner whose business was taken by the City of Phoenix to give to the developer of a Marriott hotel
That's not what led me to accuse you of lying. Looks like you're back peddling now.
a Countydummy said this eminent domain example was abusive and stealing.
b I told him that it was destructive, but he grossly misrepresented it by calling it stealing while not recognizing that it was paid for and constitutionally permitted.
c You jumped in and said it still fit the definition of stealing and said it was an abuse of the constitutional authorization.
d I acknowledged that it may or may not be stealing, but noted that you're behaving as an ideologue if you ignore facts that you don't like, and that half your audience will tune you out.
e You responded with only, "So what? Bush lost the popular vote." How else am I to take this other than as an example of loosing more than half the people yet still being a winner, indicating that even if my claim is correct, the results are acceptable.
f I said that most of the people that fall for that were on the Democrat side, and I didn't want to be dependent on that kind of stupidity. (You had no reply, implying that you're fine with doing it.)
g Now when I refer to you as an admitted liar, which you are if you follow that strategy, you have a little tantrum and say I'm "peas in the pod" with Klinton/Karvile. {smile} Funny they're the epitome of that which you appear to defend and I reject. If that's the case, even comparing me to them now is Carvilesque, accusing your opposition of using methods what you promote.
Like I said, I don’t want to structure my life dependent on the kind of stupidity in people that might fall for that garbage. It turns you into a liar, a dancing monkey or a parrot, not a man.
Sorry, I missed your post yesterday. Are you referring to "Wages go up to retain people, making more housing 'affordable'."?
If wages go up, isn't there more money in the market to make housing available? Guest rooms that stay guest rooms when they're worth $500/mo may go on the market when people have $600 to spend. It may be more profitable to build a million dollar duplex on a lot rather than a dozen little condos that sell for $150k, but if young professionals like teachers can afford $200k, the economics of building them change. High wages also depress the economy, so there may be less demand for the million dollar duplexes that was planned there.
And higher local wages both enable low-income people to afford to commute and make outsourcing more attractive, potentially easing the demand and price for housing locally, making more of it affordable.
How about indicating that the majority can be wrong? Your malady is getting worse.
Not my problem if you can't communicate.
You responded, albeit incorrectly.
In theory wages are tied to the marginal productivity of labor which will have fallen when businesses leave and production declines. Businesses hire until the wage of the last hire is equal to or less than the m.p.l.
Capitalists have to accept the dictates of the labor market though according to Marx they are able to control wage increases through the "Reserve Army of the Unemployed" which somehow always exists.
Any one or any combination of those things can happen. (And lots of other things can happen) Yes they'll affect one another, some will be more dominant under specific circumstances than others. It doesn't mean they cancel each other out and it "cannot occur under the scenario you present".
Not to be disagreeable, but that looks like an assumption that you made because you wish it were true rather than something under any kind of free market definition that I'm aware of. (Please don't take this to mean that I'm supporting any of the government abuses that you listed or that I don't think they make the situation worse.) Nothing that I'm aware of says owning a modern 3-4br home in every area of the country is a basic human need, much less a product of a free market.
It may be that for someone choosing to live in a growing desirable metropolitan area like DC and Northern VA, the natural free market state for low skilled professionals is older apartments or mobile homes unless they rise into management.
In a true free market, prices will fluctuate (sometimes wildly) in different environments. It doesn’t meant that the free market doesn’t work. It just means that life's tricky and sometimes not fair. I listed some of the alternative of how the free market would balance this out if allowed to take effect back in #14 I think.
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.