Nathan Newman wrote:
>The Institute for Justice, which you keep quoting, is in tight coordination
>with the Oregon-style regulatory takings movement, because they know the
>more tools of land management they eliminate for local governments, the
>more
>uncontested sprawl and high-profit development they can promote.
-Except that eminent domain is more typically used to promote -high-profit development than the kind of high-minded development -you're talking about.
Usually cities are interested in higher-tax revenues through development, which many people are expressing horror at, but those increased taxes pay for schools and medical care for the poor in many communities. All of these proposed laws prohibit eminent domain if the public use goal is to increase tax revenue, which means we are protecting property rights of land owners to prevent new revenue for local services.
Why is cutting local tax revenues to benefit property owners the progressive position?
Nathan Newman