I’m totally against zoning as a matter of morality – I don’t think the government has the right to tell me what to do with my property as long as I’m not harming anyone else. But I do see the need for some zoning in some circumstances. I just don’t see the need for strict zoning and land use regulations that drive up the price of property.
You really think government provided as many programs in 1950 as it does now? Really?
I agree that Baltimore would be better with a better public school system. However, giving more money to the school system has not produced that. You think there are no drug treatment centers there today? You think there isn’t a large police presence in Baltimore today? I’d just like to have some idea of why you think that a lack of government spending in Baltimore has created the city’s problems.
Well, when urban planners defend the notion that the government should be able to steal property and give it to developers, that makes people angry. When urban planners defend extortion so people can build on their own property, that makes people angry. When urban planners want laws enacted imposing land use restrictions that stop me from realizing the full value of people’s property, that makes people angry. Do you really have such a carefree attitude towards property rights that you can’t see this?
And don’t give me the spiel that people should love you because you are trying to “help the public.” In the views of a lot of people, many urban planners are more interested in telling the public what to do and imposing their views on the pubblic. Personally, I don’t see how the public is helped by restricting property rights and enacting laws that drive up the cost of housing. I know you feel differently (or else you wouldn’t be in the profession), but you should realize that a lot of people simply view your profession as the conduit by which big businesses and politicians take away their money and their property.
ED is rarely used to “build a WalMart” such as in the example you described. The Redevelopment Agnecy does not just pick randomly a neighborhood that is established. Many of the current CRA/LA projects are build on land that was already economically depressed, a slum, blighted, etc. Owners were given above the market value of their properties, and often, many were more than happy to sell considering their property was just sitting there remaining stagnant anyways.
And so you don’t end up completely hating redevelopment agencies, actually the CRA/LA now rarely uses eminent domain. Want to know who is using the most of their ED powers? LAUSD.
I did a wiki search and it came up with this definition:
In contemporary practice in the USA, a covenant typically refers to restrictions set on contracts like deeds of sale. “Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions,” abbreviated “CC&Rs,” are a complicated system of covenants, known generically as “deed restrictions,” built into the deeds of all the homes[1] in a common interest development, particularly in the tens of millions of American homes governed by a homeowner association (HOA) or condominium association.
Any owners who are happy to sell don’t need protection from Eminent Domain, since it’s never used against them. When discussing whether and how ED is to be used, you have to focus on the owners who are not happy to sell. Maybe it’s worth taking their land without their permission, and maybe it’s not. But you can’t gloss over it by focusing on the people who aren’t put out by the government’s actions.
But isn’t that exactly why we have Prop 98? Because the Kelo situation was one where everyone (even the Justices on SCOTUS) said this was wrong but the ED was upheld? What if the CRA/LA or LAUSD or any other government agency wanted to use ED as I described? What would stop them? The law? Citizen groups? Courts (like I can afford to fight the City of LA in court)?
You claim ED is a necessary evil in private development and I agree that life would be better if we could get some development projects going - but in this day and age when corporations can spend millions on naming rights for stadiums or are reporting record profits and going for more, I don’t think it should fall on the private individual whose only mistake it was was to buy a house that in a decade would be on much demanded property to foot the bill.
Maybe I’m going about this all wrong. Let’s start over.
Do you believe the Kelo was the right decision? If not, how should Californians protect themselves from a repeat occurence?
Actually Kelo decision was 5-4, with 5 of the Justices agreeing that economic development constituted a “public good” hence saying ED was ok.
Do I agree with Kelo? Good question. Some days I do, some days I don’t. I don’t work for a redevelopment agency, so odds are I will never have to use ED so this issue isn’t particularly personal to me. I have seen ED used for both good and bad. I just think that to wipe it out as an option completely can have a detrimental affect on public services. Instead, keep it as an option that can be debated, negotiated, sometimes implemented, sometimes not.
So how to protect yourself? Grassroots organizations are gaining incredible power these days. The Bus Riders Union, a civil organization which constitutes mostly Hispanic, low income transit riders, successfully sued Metro from increasing their bus fares. The Surfriders sued to prevent the construction of the 241 tollroad. Those are just a few examples that come to mind where “the average citizen” took action and was successful.
Actually in 2006, CA had Prop 90 on the ballot to prevent ED for private use (without all the other tidbits like rent control), and that was voted down.
It’s not like we totally shun the notion of property rights - of course we respect it. We own homes too and it’s not like planners are using ED for everything everywhere at all times. We avoid ED whenever possible because it is really freaking expensive. It is a complete “last resort” option.
Can you give me a specific example in which we enact “imposing land restrictions” and then I can more properly address your concerns?
Planners aren’t the only factors that drive up the cost of housing. Maybe you should complain to your police department for making your neighborhood too safe, hence causing more demand to your neighborhood. Maybe you should complain to your public school system for being too good and making people want to move to your neighborhood. Maybe you should blame the construction industry for inflating the price of construction, hence making development a less attractive option. Maybe you should blame people who start families for contributing to the overpopulation of the Earth, hence causing an increased demand for housing.
Yes, I understand how the voting for the two props interact. I am likely to vote yes for both because I am in favor of both. Although I prefer Prop 98, I do not want to make the better an enemy of the the good.