Reply With Quote
Excellent, we agree then. Too bad the man you nominated for Mt. Rushmore does not.
I'm opposed to government subsidized sports facilities. Period. I think voters who pass referendums that end up with places like the Alamodome and Arlington Stadium should have their voting rights abolished.
Is that non-dodgy enough for you?
Excellent, we agree then. Too bad the man you nominated for Mt. Rushmore does not.
He wasn't President or even Governor then...but, a businessman who was responsible to partners and employees.
Looks to me like he did what was in the best interest of his business...and, as long as government and voters allow it, what are you going to do?
You don't know that he was the only person involved in that decision and, if I'm not mistaken, the City of Arlington passed a referendum to build the Rangers that stadium...so, it appears you have the voters to blame as well.
And, were condemnations made on the basis of urban blight?
RG is probably correct in his percentages - nothing would grow in California without irrigation. National Geographic had a good pictoral map of water usage nationwide and percentages of use.
Very little of the use in south central Texas is agriculture. I would bet the following is true: The Edwards has much more agricultural use than the Carrizo-Wilcox,
and the lion share of Edwards water is used by municipalities.
My point wasn't to mention how the Ballpark in Arlington was financed - but rather to rebuke the claims by some that eminent domain is a tool of liberal socialist wackos.
I think the whole "economic development" angle is a liberal socialist wacko idea.
Except that 75 and 25 equal 100 which, as the poster mentioned, leaves nothing for industrial use.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...21.html?page=2the Fort Trumbull tract where the razed homes once stood never did get built on, despite a $78 million incentive package from the state of Connecticut. In 2008, after the nationwide real-estate bubble burst, the construction company, Boston-based Corcoran Jennison, that the NLDC had engaged to develop the site announced that it couldn’t obtain enough financing for the ambitious enterprise and pulled out. In 2009 Pfizer itself left New London, abandoning its new digs only eight years after the building had been completed. In 2010 Pfizer sold the New London facility for a reported $55 million—a small fraction of what it had spent to build it—to General Dynamics’s Groton-based Electric Boat division, a submarine manufacturer. Few of the 1,400 or so Pfizer employees who worked there had chosen to live in New London, so its contribution to the city’s economic base had always been questionable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
