The Observation Deck

Thought this was an interesting article to share. Should help us feel good about our decision here in Lakewood.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1201654 ... email.html

But private development went along very nicely for two centuries before politicians began seizing one person's property for the benefit of another private citizen. Sometimes the marketplace adapted in amusing ways, as when major building projects were forced to go up around, or even on top of, older buildings. But in the absence of the coercive state, buildings still got built.

The most grandly conceived plans are also often those most likely to fail. If a project cannot proceed without government interference, it is reasonable to ask whether it is worth putting the hamfist of government on the scales at all. As the Institute for Justice's report notes, Baltimore's much-touted Inner Harbor redevelopment remains dependent on government handouts. At the same time, private redevelopments without eminent domain, such as in Anaheim's A-Town, are thriving.

I am really impressed with Anaheim. I think we should truly look at what they are doing as an example of how with little money they are making decisions that grow their city.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/news/o ... om-anaheim

Lynn Farris wrote:The most grandly conceived plans are also often those most likely to fail.

I'm a little more supportive of eminent domain than you are but not much. The above sentence says it all. If a project needs huge subsidies to be built it will probably need huge subsidies to stay afloat.

You know Bill they often go hand in hand. If the developer can't afford the market prices they get the local authorities to do the dirty work of eminent domain.

As they say in the WSJ for centuries we built things without eminent domain - you either paid what the owners wanted and negotiated with them or you built around them.

If they can't afford to buy the property do they have the money to do the project? Too often not. The federal reserve wrote about this too. These aren't property rights crazies. These are financial people that are saying if the market doesn't support it - the local government throwing $$ at it won't make it support it.

And oft times too they are replacing loyal local businesses with bigger chains that if the dollars don't materialize they are out of there because they are much more committed to the bottom line than they are to a city. So you often see real problems with these types of developments.

This is why the plan for a convention center - paid for with our tax bucks - steams me as well. If it's such a grand idea, surely someone who wants profits will come and built it themselves. It's the kind of question that answers itself.