"This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here."
This sounds harmless and in fact seems pretty logical. However, as soon as anyone begins introducing aesthetics into an eminent domain debate, it becomes legitimate to introduce it in all such debates. In my opinion, judging what is or isn't aesthetically pleasing, should always be out of bounds.
Mike
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell
>neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had been
>zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard, oil tank
>farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque
>suburb we're talking about here.
I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern. The suburbs and
McMansions are safe. It is the houses that are in the "other" areas that
are at risk. Those that people who can't afford a McMansion live in. If it
was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb, this could never have been
done. Since it was the other side of the tracks, however, it is inherently
OK. Those people don't deserve to own property, anyway, right?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
