JKS: >You mean, be decided by referendum? Which are possible to manipulate by dumping lots of money, although referenda may reduce backroom payoffs. Noneless, the politicians who decide or approve rthese things are supposed themselves to be democratically elected. There some problems and disadvantages.<
experience here in California has shown that referenda can be corrupt(ed). But the referendum process represents a barrier to the business/government eminent domain "development" bloc bulldozer. One more political expense that must be paid (in addition to the purchase of politicians, judges, etc.) by the developers. It's more gravel in the gears of "progress."
After long experience, people in CA read their local newspapers -- including alternative rags such as the L.A. WEEKLY -- or listen to political parties and pundits to decide which referenda to vote for and against. There's currently a major predisposition among voters to vote "No" on all referenda.
That doesn't mean that people always make the right decision (far from it). But the people are supposed to be sovereign, not the judges or politicians.
> What unit decides the referundum? This is not aa question to which there is an obvious answer, Here in Chicago the expansion of O'Hare airport is an issue and will require condemnation of certain houses in nearby neighborhoods. Is the electorate Schaumberg and Rosemont -- the people some of whose houses are at stake? Is it Will County, where O'Hare is Located? Is it the Collar counties of Chicago, all of which use the airport? The state of Illinois? Etc. <
Obviously, the principle is that communities that are most affected by a project like that would get to vote. If it were voted on the Illinois level, a lot of people down state wouldn't even bother to vote on such a referendum, so that generally only the up-staters would vote. Which fits with the idea that those most affected by the project should have the vote.
If there are no political units within Illinois which obviously represent the areas affected, then the referendum should be at the state level.
> Also, condemnations are quite common and routine.<
if so, maybe the developers should pay a 100% premium on the market value of houses condemned. That would make them less common and routine.
> Pipelines companies need easement to run a pipe through some farmland, the land is condemned, etc. There's some litigation about the price but it's basically an issue between the taker and the property owner. <
Any pipeline which only affects one property-owner reminds me of the old Chicago story (likely untrue) of the politician's son-in-law who just happened to own a 100 mile-long piece of property that was 300 yards wide which followed the desired route of a new expressway.
In reality, pipelines affect a number of property-owners and those owners not directly in the way of the line. So it's a political issue, not just a matter of one-on-one contracting. The pipeline company may also have political clout and so needs countervailing power in the form of a referendum.
>To politicize every such issue by calling for a vote on each issue
would be a heavy burden on economic development and on the
electorate. <
I think I'd rather have political decisions made in a politicized way (open, transparent, contested) than to have politicians and technocrats make them "in our name" in some smoke-filled room.
Who defines what "economic development" is? I say that it should be the people, not the insiders.
>And you would end up with something like the Cook County ballot,
which, with the elected judges that you literally need a guidesheet
to know ho to vote for even if you are a lawyer, looks like the phone
book. Put every condemnation issue on the ballot, not only will you
delay development to whenever it is possible or convenient to hold an
election, but you will simply space out the electorate. What the hell
do I know about whether some farmland in Will Countyu should be
condemned for a pipeline?<
Again, various "intermediate institutions" (newspapers, political parties, etc.) between individual voters and the government can help inform the voters.
One of the reasons why top-down "solutions" relying on polticians, judges, and technocrats (assuming, it seems, that these fathers "know best") are so popular is that the intermediate institutions are so weak. But that tells us that we need stronger institutions -- "civil society" -- not that we should give up and let people make decisions for us. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.