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 (304629)	9/26/2006 8:04:57 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573892

"The Texas private land was taken by the government, for the government," Ok. I guess it was ok then. And when the Connecticut court took the land to increase the tax base, that was totally different, and thus wrong.

To: steve harris who wrote (304629)	9/27/2006 6:08:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573892

Your difference is moot. No, you are wrong. Connecticut private land was confiscated and turned over to another private individual. The Texas private land was taken by the government, for the government, for the good of the people of Arlington, remaining in the ownership of the City of Arlington. Do you have any idea what a rip off of taxpayer money these stadiums are? Of course you don't. Why the hell do you think LA hasn't had an NFL team for what is it 14 years? They cost a fortune to build and another fortune to build......and all the supposed intangible value they bring a community......well the LA story does not conform that value. The raiders left right after LA was in a fiscal mess from riots and earthquakes and couldn't afford a new stadium. All the dire consequences of not having an NFL team in LA were drug out like marionettes acting out a play. I have never seen such hand wringing....LA is doomed. LA will become a backwater......bla bla bla. Flash forward 14 years, property values in LA are at an all time new high. Not one company has left because LA doesn't have an NFL team. So if LA did not lose by not having an NFL team......what is the gain by having one? I think its a lot of horse puckey to be honest. As for Arlington, that stadium cost Texans big time eminent domain or no eminent domain. For what gain? And the Dallas metro area didn't need the injection of a pro stadium to survive whereas New London Ct. is in serious economic crisis. It doesn't have developers and companies falling all over themselves to build in New London like they do in Arlington/Dallas. The fact that Pfizer was willing to build a plant there is huge for them. The city of New London is trying to capitalize on that investment for the good of all the citizens of New London, not just the few that would be effected. Just because the land was turned over to private hands for development does not make it any less worthy except if eminent domain was used to get the property cheaply which it was not. BTW do you even know what the land was zoned for? Probably not. I am not a proponent for eminent domain. I think it should be used sparingly and only when it truly benefits the common good. But sometimes its a necessity when you have some butthole who won't sell because he wants top, top dollar for his property.