Comments on: Anti-RDA Effort Heating Up

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:52:50 +0000

Gary, you’re mistaken. Redevelopment creates legal authority to divert funds from core local functions – schools, public health and safety – for a slush fund for local politicians. Now closing this fiscal wound benefits the State, because the State must backfill local schools’ losses. Why is that objectionable?

And yes, ending the $5 billion yearly redevelopment bleed will also go far to end the worst abuses of eminent domain. But that’s not the main rationale. Redevelopment is simply and structurally the most wasteful and inefficient public spending going.

By: gary

gary — Thu, 26 May 2011 00:09:13 +0000

….and, you think the solution to any of those other problems, or even eminent domain for that matter, is to take funds from local government and give it to the State in order to balance their budget?

Seriously?

By: Steven Greenhut

Steven Greenhut — Wed, 25 May 2011 04:14:15 +0000

Eminent domain is the biggest problem and many RDAs routinely abuse or threaten to use eminent domain for non-public uses. Redevelopment officials adamantly fought serious eminent domain reform. But I also am against the central planning aspects — the distortion of the free market when City Hall picks economic winners and losers. I’m against corporate welfare and the wanton debt spending that are part and parcel of the redevelopment process. I also dislike the costly bureaucracies that spring up to administer these programs and the ugly architecture that typically results when bureaucrats decide on projects rather than the marketplace.

By: gary

gary — Wed, 25 May 2011 02:39:44 +0000

It sounds to me like your complaint is with eminent domain rather than rda’s.

By: John Seiler

John Seiler — Tue, 24 May 2011 23:06:50 +0000

Let’s hope a couple Republicans change their minds and join the majority Democrats in killing this anti-property rights monstrosity.