You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bloomberg prepared to spend $1 billion on White House run....
- Thread starter JayS
- Start date
Quote from atticus:
The right to kill through secondhand smoke? You don't have the right, fucko.
I might be incorrect here, but I think what the poster was alluding to is that Bloomberg has been a big proponent of imminent domain here in New York. Bloomberg seems to lack sensitivity when it comes to the consideration of preservation versus the interests if real estate developers. He has paved the way for whole middle-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn to be demolished so that high rise towers and huge multiple dwelling units will replace smaller buildings of historical value. Small businesses will close, the social fabric of these neighborhoods were and will continued to be destroyed, and thousands of people will be permanently displaced by the plan at the sole benefit of a couple of developers.
He was also a very aggressive supporter of the plans to build a stadium on the West side of Manhattan. The environmental impact would have been catastrophic. Neighborhoods would be destroyed, traffic that would fill up residential areas making it near-impossible to navigate with any degree of efficiency for local residents an local businesses. The burden it would place on those who live and work in that area and surrounding neighborhoods would be impacted beyond measure. I'm relieved that those who believed that the stadium was a bad idea, managed to win out, maybe because Bloomberg himself may have finally seen the folly of it.
That said, I happen to like a lot of what Bloomberg has done in other areas and do believe that he has run this city in an honest manner and without any consideration for his personal reward. I don't think he's corrupt at all nor a power freak and I don't think he has any hidden agenda. I think he has a vision of how government should work, how it should serve the people, what concessions it takes to keep equanimity, and what courage will be required to make some very hard decisions we will be faced with shortly.
Unlike Guilliani, Bloomberg has not polarized the races or classes of this city; he's shown a great deal of respect to all involved. He has brought people together, and not the kind of pretend together that ends up leaving most empty-handed. Despite some reservations about minor things, I think he's the real deal and I don't think he will make promises that he has no real intention of fulfilling.
That he is so rich he can't be bought only makes his candidacy that much more compelling.
Quote from IcarusByNight:
I might be incorrect here, but I think what the poster was alluding to is that Bloomberg has been a big proponent of imminent domain here in New York. Bloomberg seems to lack sensitivity when it comes to the consideration of preservation versus the interests if real estate developers. He has paved the way for whole middle-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn to be demolished so that high rise towers and huge multiple dwelling units will replace smaller buildings of historical value.
while i generally dont like eminent domain because it opens the door for corruption and abuse, i completely trust bloomberg with it. i would never trust someone like dick cheney with it. without eminent domain, time square would still be the nasty craphole that it was before the mid-90's. for those of you who have never seen old times square, you have no idea what it was like compared to now.
bloomberg's point about eminent domain is that he wants to use it to revitalize poverty stricken areas. this is not about demolishing middle class neighborhoods to make high rise condos for the elite. i would not call old alphabet city or prospect heights "middle class" by any means. but if you visit harlem, the lower east side, prospect heights, long island city and many other up and coming neighborhoods in NYC, you will see alot of economic activity and the areas are quite clean and safe to live now. all this progress is because of eminent domain.
on the flipside, you can argue that the poor get screwed and are forced to live elsewhere. basically the NYC economy is expanding and middle and upper class residents are reaping the benefits at the expense of the poor.
in all fairness, there is no one right choice on this issue. do you want to keep the ghettos and stunt economic growth (no one wins but no one gets screwed) or do you want to tear down the ghettos and revitalize the economy (poor ppl lose, everyone else wins)? do you prefer old times square with the sleaze and drugs (old school NYC culture) or do you want new times square, which is clean and safe but looks like disney world. i personally prefer the new times square but both sides can be argued.
Got my vote