> Woj, I'm surprised that you're such a "public property"
> enthusiast. In Eastern Europe until 1990 or so, wasn't such
> property controlled by a monopoly Party?
Once you mentioned that, the public property might have been controlled by monopoly party - which did produce architectural monsters in the 1960s style, but it id have some considerable silver lining that this land of the greedy is yet to achieve - no homelessness, basic but decent living conditions for the working class, integration (e.g. my father who was a senior executive officer in one of the largest industrial establishments in Gdansk area lived in the same apartment building as the blue collar workers - and that was the norm rather than an exception). Of course, we can debate (to say the least) the aesthetic aspect of these developments but they did produce a considerable utilitarian and integrative value to the society as a whole. In fact, Eastern European cities, which are still a part of the "second world" - the velvet revolution notwithstanding - are far better places to live than most of the urban wasteland in the world's only remaining superpower. And I am not even mentioning Western European cities here.
So whatever spin anyone wants to put on it, the unquestionable fact remains that the overall living conditions of the majority of the US urban population are far inferior to those in other first and second world countries, and this is a direct result of private land ownership and land use policies favoring profiteers and speculators. I am pretty sure that spinmeisters of various persuasions will concoct some measures that will either deny that or provide good excuses - but I stopped taking what's written seriously long time ago. I believe in what I can see with my own eyes, not what the newspapers and other papers tell me.
A larger issue, however, is that this, as well as other political discussions in this country are driven by symbolic rather than utilitarian values. A Wal Mart may produce considerable utilitarian value (see an article on that in the last issue of _Dollars and Sense_ , which can be accused of many things but defending corporate America is certainly not one of them), but it has a "bad karma" - so the knee-jerk populists, lefties including, oppose it. And it has a bad karma because the popular mythology portrays it as the slayer of the all-American icons - the Main Street, the mom-and-pop shop and the community that never was. The slums that plague virtually every US city are horrible places to live, they also produce public bads (crime, hopelessness, urban blight, shrinking tax base), but they have a "good karma" - so the knee jerk populists defend them against the encroachments of those with "bad karma" (megacorps, yuppies, etc.). And they have a good karma because some entrepreneuring writers managed to portray them as "vibrant, exotic communities" to star-eyed college kids and bored, excitement-seeking middle class intellectuals. Ditto for the unions - they have the good karma because they are symbolic expressions of the working class struggle against capitalism - never mind that their utilitarian value for a great majority of working class people in this country is close to nil. Black gangbangers killed more Blacks than all lynching mobs combined in the history of this country - but never mind that - gangs have a good karma as the object of veneration of the hip hop culture, the coolest thing in the entertainment industry.
It is not possible to have rational discussion on these issues, because cultural icons elicit strong emotions that render all rational and utility-based arguments irrelevant. It is not possible to argue with a Muslim mob enraged over an obscure Danish newspaper publishing caricatures of their cultural icon that Denmark (and other Scandinavian countries) has considerable value to them and other developing countries as a source of international aid and political support. The emotions generated by the icon render such arguments irrelevant - al that matters is moral and emotional discourse. Likewise, it is not possible to have a rational discussion on urban development, when the problem is stated in terms of moral struggle between light (da people) and darkness (yuppies, megacorps, government).
Let me wrap it up with some personal observations. When I got off the boat some 25 years ago and landed in Grand Rapids, MI, I could not believe my own eyes that the richest country in the world can produce such urban blight. I thought it was some sort of fluke, some sort forgotten backyard of the country - rather than its industrial core. It took me a while to learn that this was the norm rather than an exception, and that the only remaining superpower boasting the level of civilization never before achieved in actuality produces living conditions found in the Third World countries. So basically I realized that I ended up emigrating from the second world to the third. I could probably remedy this a bit by moving to the suburbs, but while the suburban life might be a bit more comfortable, I find it even more depressing than the urban blight, not to mention the expense. So I settled for the urban blight. However, each time someone tells me about what amounts to symbolic aspects of urban life (gentrification, oppression, blah blah blah) I either laugh or get mildly annoyed, depending how depressed I am on a given day. I tend to believe my own eyes rather than what other people are telling me, and what I see around me is depressing.
My reaction is no different from that of other European visitors to this country. In fact, most visiting fellows I met in Baltimore express similar opinions, when they feel comfortable talking about that. Ironically, I often end up in a rather strange position of telling them that it is not as bad as they may think. One of my best friends from the UK who worked here, was forced to go back because his wife categorically refused to join him after a brief visit to Baltimore. While the US may have some good things to offer (e.g. the higher education system) - the quality of life, especially urban life, is not one of them. Having spent here 25 years, I wish I could go back to Europe but that does not seem like a realistic option at this time. I really miss European cities and that is why I welcome every effort that brings the US urban scene to that level. At this point, it is more emotional than rational, and there is no specter that you can invoke - gentrification, horror stories of eminent domain, fuzzy warm feelings toward the simple small town life that never was, plight of 'da people,' megacorps, elitism, or racism - to sway me otherwise. It boils down to fuzzy warm feelings toward small town life that seem quite popular here vs. my fuzzy warm feelings toward European-style cities.
So the bottom line is that the stories of eminent domain abuses that various writers on this list mention may be true, but that is not really in issue here. At issue is what these stories are the cases of. For most US-sers, I suspect, they are the cases of corporate or government assault on core popular symbols and values, social inequality, racism, capitalist excesses etc. For me they are just the normal "noise" in the system, as there is no abuse-free system, but publicizing these abuses is the case of knee-jerk populism or right wing efforts to strangle the cities. These differences are probably cultural and irreconcilable - all we can do here is to accept them and remain civil.
Wojtek