Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.nintendo (
More info?)
El Guapo <plethora@pinatas.com> wrote:
>> I'll believe this the day "conservatives" admit GWBush's fortune
>> was built on an abuse of eminent domain[1]. In other words, hell will
>But are you saying that a publically owned stadium does not qualify as
>"public use?" Although there can be plenty of opportunity for abuse in such
In this case, your question is irrelevant: Arlington's ballpark is
no longer publically owned, and it was always privately operated. Public
money was used for private purposes, up to and including granting the
Rangers development rights to 253 acres surrounding the park (the stadium
itself only occupies 17 acres). That's just a land grab on the part of
the Rangers. And s a matter of fact, the stadium, built with public
money, was sold to the Rangers far below cost: it cost $191M, and was sold
to the Rangers on $60M rent paid to that date.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_f1.htm
>a case, at least it falls under the obvious meaning of "public use" in the
>Constitution. That's a far cry from taking property in order to build
>condos, bigger homes, and privately owned shopping malls, for no other
>reason than to (hopefully) increase tax revenues. How can that in any way
>be considered "public use?"
A mall is no less private, and no more public, than a privately
owned and operated stadium. I agree with you that eminent domain to
create a mall is hard to justify in terms of public good; I hope you will
agree with me that using it to create this stadium in Arlington is equally
as hard to justify.
And the discussion of this case, IMO, puts the lie to the claim
that right-wingers are serious about property rights.
--
Smile! You're at Mr. Smiley's.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram