1%er U2 guitarist trying to lobby his way past California Coastal Commission regulations to build monster mansions.
2 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 11 previous comments
- In contemporary times in any area of the U.S. with which I'm familiar, eminent domain is only used to support additional development not "undevelopment" of already existing areas. Even when existing areas are condemned under eminent domain and torn down, it is only for construction of other developments (housing, freeways, train lines, businesses, etc.) There may be a few exceptions, but they're few and far between. I'm sure you know this, so at this point you're starting to move the needle toward the Troll Zone on this topic.Jun 16, 2012
- The US Constitution permits eminent domain condemnations for any public purpose. Of course it's mostly used for new development, but guess why?
However, the US Constitution did not descend from heaven like Venus. It is a political document. Whose interests are being served?Jun 16, 2012
- Now you're starting to sound like Scalia on the Constitution. It's how eminent domain is used today that matters, and it's not generally used to take away people's houses that were legally built in order to replace them with open land. You're trolling.Jun 16, 2012
- No, you're simply not hearing my point. I'm saying that the whole apparatus is set up to ensure that current property owners can keep their stuff, and that I have no stake in a fight between The Edge and his fellow 1%ers in Malibu. I would like all of them to not have houses on the beach, and I have no reason to prefer one to the other.
But you're quite right that it's how it's used that matters, and my question is why is that how it's used? The question of how it's used is, in fact, the only question, and how it's used is to preference current property holders (as a class) always, and current property holders (as individuals) almost always.
Of course I understand the political reasons why this is true, that's what I'm talking about.Jun 16, 2012
- You seem to be upset that preserving some open space that's left can benefit rich people who built earlier in the area. I don't care if it benefits them or not, if the end result is preserving the open space, which is a positive goal in any case.Jun 16, 2012
- I'm not upset; I simply said that the purpose of the CC was to guarantee a benefit to current homeowners at the expense of potential new ones. I should have said "one of the purposes of the CC, without which it would not exist".Jun 16, 2012