Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (243244)	7/25/2005 2:54:16 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572601

I guess... I remain pretty surprised that the judges ruled the way they did. I personally like the idea in theory, but not so much in the way it was ruled... The particular case was in New London, CT, an area that used to thrive but is now down the tubes, and one that desperately needs the type of project which the city was aiming to bring in. However, the Court ruled that the homeowners needed to be paid "fair value." Well, what's fair value? Who determines that? Some real guidelines and an independent panel need to be in place here. Plus, when someone's being forced out of his home, "fair value" doesn't cut it... that person's standard of living should be significantly raised -- 3-5X standard value is more like it. There needs to be a minimum. And, the municipality shouldn't foot the bill... if the project is going to be that profitable, the developers should have to pay all the costs involved or the project isn't that worth doing anyway. -Z