franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/27/85)
In article <28200425@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] >>In article <28200390@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > [Frank Adams :] >>And the proper response to this generic rebuttal is to note that there >>are many areas where the government has done a great deal of good. >>Without the power of eminent domain, we would all be much poorer. Public >>road-building has done a great deal of good. You may argue that private >>roads could have done as well, but that is an unproven assumption. In >>fact, public roadbuilding took place because of a recognized need for >>the roads, and a perceived inability of the private sector to provide >>them. The libertarian proposal is to build toll roads. But for local >>roads, the cost of collecting tolls probably exceeds the cost of building >>and maintaining the roads. > >The proper way to test these assertions is by controlled experi- >ment: two comparable zones in one of which government exercises >eminent domain and builds roads and in the other collects less >taxes. Elsewhere you made a rather sweeping statement that so- >cial experimentation is dangerous and I tried to draw a distinc- >tion between proper experimentation, relatively safe and abso- >lutely necessary, and rash wholesale innovation, almost univer- >sally harmful. This one really can't be done on a small scale. If you try it in an area as small as, say, a U.S. county, people will just bypass it using free public roads nearby. You had better plan on doing it for a whole state, at minimum. Now that state, whichever it is, already has a lot of roads in it. If this experiment is going to work, you will have to sell them to somebody. Whoever buys them will have to spend a fair amount of money to enable them to collect tolls. This seriously interferes with the access rights of those with adjoining property -- the state will at least have to exercize its eminent domain one last time to force them to sell those rights. And I really think that the effect of all this would be that people would move out of the state in droves, and that those left would be impoverished. This would not be easily reversed, either; it is much easier to destroy the economy in a region than it is to build it back up again. Doesn't sound "relatively safe and absolutely necessary" to me. >Until the experiment has been made, on whom is the burden of proof? >I would claim, the advocates of government control and coercion. >Since you approve, in principle, of a sunset law - it would seem >that you agree. But then your sentence above : > >>You may argue that private >>roads could have done as well, but that is an unproven assumption. > >should read: > >You may argue that private >roads could have done no better, but that is an unproven assumption. I would claim, until an experiment has been made, the burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo. I approve of a sunset law; but I also approve of a constitution and common law which are not subject to it. It is an established fact that private roads have nowhere been built. It is an established fact that railroads have never been built without state exercize of eminent domain (and almost always, subsidies, too). It is an established fact that airports large enough to handle jets have always been built with public money, using eminent domain. Part of the reason why these things have never been done privately is because of public competition. But this puts the cart before the horse. The reason for public spending on these things is that private interests did not provide them. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (12/31/85)
> It is an established fact that private roads have nowhere been built. It > is an established fact that railroads have never been built without state > exercize of eminent domain (and almost always, subsidies, too). > > ----------- > It is > an established fact that airports large enough to handle jets have always > been built with public money, using eminent domain. > ----------- > > Part of the reason why these things have never been done privately is > because of public competition. But this puts the cart before the horse. > The reason for public spending on these things is that private interests > did not provide them. > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka > Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 In the case of airports, this is easily explained by air travel being a luxury of the ruling class. They were built by the government because this class found it cheaper to use their political power than to pay more for air fares. It's unlikely that eminent domain was really required. The airports are generally outside cities where land is relatively cheap; there's considerable flexibility on siting; the option of not building an airport is quite viable, so hold-outs have no assurance the buyer will eventually give in. Disclaimer: I haven't researched this in detail. Maybe I'm wrong. This doesn't appear to be an impediment to posting news articles though. (Nor do I think it should be.) Radford Neal
janw@inmet.UUCP (01/02/86)
> It is an established fact that private roads have nowhere been built. Not *exactly* true, though Frank still has a point. The following is from the Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia: >>The early turnpikes were all government enterprises, but later turnpikes >>were built and operated by private companies under state charters. >>Few of these private companies were able to net a profit over an extended >>period, and nearly all of the roads had reverted to county control >>by 1850.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/03/86)
In article <19@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >In the case of airports, this is easily explained by air travel being >a luxury of the ruling class. They were built by the government because >this class found it cheaper to use their political power than to pay more >for air fares. Really? I think you will find that a majority of the U.S. population has flown; I would guess an overwhelming majority. Having an airport nearby is very advantageous for a city (execpt for that relatively small area which suffers from the noise). There is a consistent pattern in major cities of suburbs near airports growing much faster than those which are not. This is because businesses like to be near airports, and it is advantageous to be in an area where there are lots of businesses. (Because businesses provide jobs, among other reasons.) >It's unlikely that eminent domain was really required. The airports are >generally outside cities where land is relatively cheap; there's considerable >flexibility on siting; the option of not building an airport is quite >viable, so hold-outs have no assurance the buyer will eventually give in. But a jetport takes up a huge area. Rationally it may not make sense to hold out, but the required area is large enough that there will almost certainly be an irrational holdout. Someone who likes where they live, and doesn't want to move, no matter what. "Truckloads of money? No thanks, I'm comfortable." Probably 1% of the population will either demand huge amounts of money to move, or refuse outright, without any consideration of whether the buyer has any other options. Not building an airport is a viable option for a large city if it doesn't care about the well being of its inhabitants. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (01/07/86)
> In article <19@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: > >In the case of airports, this is easily explained by air travel being > >a luxury of the ruling class. They were built by the government because > >this class found it cheaper to use their political power than to pay more > >for air fares. > > Really? I think you will find that a majority of the U.S. population has > flown; I would guess an overwhelming majority. Really? I would guess that even today maybe 30% haven't flown. One of us will have to actually do work looking up statistics to resolve this one... I was actually thinking more of an earlier period when airports were first being built however, not the current situation. > Having an airport nearby > is very advantageous for a city (execpt for that relatively small area > which suffers from the noise). There is a consistent pattern in major > cities of suburbs near airports growing much faster than those which are > not. This is because businesses like to be near airports, and it is > advantageous to be in an area where there are lots of businesses. > (Because businesses provide jobs, among other reasons.) This doesn't jive with my personal knowledge of Calgary, where the fastest growing area is furthest away from the airport. Radford Neal
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (01/07/86)
In article <984@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >Really? I think you will find that a majority of the U.S. population has >flown; I would guess an overwhelming majority. Having an airport nearby >is very advantageous for a city (execpt for that relatively small area >which suffers from the noise). There is a consistent pattern in major >cities of suburbs near airports growing much faster than those which are >not. This is because businesses like to be near airports, and it is >advantageous to be in an area where there are lots of businesses. >(Because businesses provide jobs, among other reasons.) > >Not building an airport is a viable option for a large city if it doesn't >care about the well being of its inhabitants. > I think that having an airport is great for the people who move in to the area because jobs were created because there was an airport -- but it is very debateable whether or not the existing citizens received a net benefit. Is it to the advantage of the people of a city when their population of 750,000 soars to over a million in 3 years? I don't know. I don't know how to figure out, either. -- Laura Creighton sun!hoptoad!laura (note new address! l5 will still ihnp4!hoptoad!laura work for a while....) hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/12/86)
In article <27@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> Having an airport nearby >> is very advantageous for a city (execpt for that relatively small area >> which suffers from the noise). There is a consistent pattern in major >> cities of suburbs near airports growing much faster than those which are >> not. This is because businesses like to be near airports, and it is >> advantageous to be in an area where there are lots of businesses. >> (Because businesses provide jobs, among other reasons.) > >This doesn't jive with my personal knowledge of Calgary, where the fastest >growing area is furthest away from the airport. There are undoubtably exceptions; the location of the airport is not the only factor affecting economic development. My personal knowledge includes Chicago, Boston, and Hartford. Chicago and Hartford both fit the pattern. In Boston, the airport is on the coast, and the nearby areas are already fully developed. There are a number of other cities where I have the impression that the area around the airport(s) has grown more rapidly, but I don't know them well enough to be sure. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (01/17/86)
In article <27@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> Really? I think you will find that a majority of the U.S. population has >> flown; I would guess an overwhelming majority. > >Really? I would guess that even today maybe 30% haven't flown. One of us >will have to actually do work looking up statistics to resolve this one... Pray tell, what do you define an overwhelming majority to be? I ran across the figure in question in the recent *Time* cover story about the current air travel price war, where they reported that 70% of Americans have now flown. So, your estimate of 30% *not* having flown appears to be correct. I would say, though, that 70% is quite a substantial majority -- not what one would ordinarily call an "elite." -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm And there's a dreadful law here -- it was made by mistake, but there it is -- that if any one asks for machinery they have to have it and keep on using it. Edith Nesbit, 1910, *The Magic City*
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/20/86)
> In article <27@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: > >> Really? I think you will find that a majority of the U.S. population has > >> flown; I would guess an overwhelming majority. > > > >Really? I would guess that even today maybe 30% haven't flown. One of us > >will have to actually do work looking up statistics to resolve this one... > > Pray tell, what do you define an overwhelming majority to be? I ran > across the figure in question in the recent *Time* cover story about > the current air travel price war, where they reported that 70% of > Americans have now flown. So, your estimate of 30% *not* having > flown appears to be correct. I would say, though, that 70% is quite a > substantial majority -- not what one would ordinarily call an "elite." > > Michael McNeil While 70% of the population flies, and therefore a majority of Americans fly, it is still true that most of the flying in America is done by a very small percentage of people. For most Americans, one plane flight _a_year_ is exceptional. For business travellers, one plane flight _a_month_ is probably common.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/04/86)
In article <1013@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >In article <27@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> >>This doesn't jive with my personal knowledge of Calgary, where the fastest >>growing area is furthest away from the airport. > >There are undoubtably exceptions; the location of the airport is not the >only factor affecting economic development. My personal knowledge includes >Chicago, Boston, and Hartford. Chicago and Hartford both fit the pattern. >In Boston, the airport is on the coast, and the nearby areas are already >fully developed. There are a number of other cities where I have the >impression that the area around the airport(s) has grown more rapidly, but >I don't know them well enough to be sure. > A prime example is Kansas City. About 15 years ago a new KCI airport was built. It was *deliberately* placed in a undeveloped area, with few residents, in an attempt to minimize the noise nuisance problem(the old airport was adjacent to downtown KC). The area is now on of the most rapidly gowing developement areas in the Kansas City area. So much for getting the airport away from the city where it won't bother anyone! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/05/86)
In article <993@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > A prime example is Kansas City. About 15 years ago a new KCI >airport was built. It was *deliberately* placed in a undeveloped area, >with few residents, in an attempt to minimize the noise nuisance >problem(the old airport was adjacent to downtown KC). The area is now >on of the most rapidly gowing developement areas in the Kansas City >area. So much for getting the airport away from the city where it >won't bother anyone! Ah, but the attempt suceeeded! They didn't plunk down an airport and inconvenience exiting residents with the noise. What they did was make it possible for you to choose to accept the noise level in exchange for the other benefits of living by an airport ... if you had to move there to a new development area you can hardly say that you didn't choose it. Actually, you can. Allow me to make a prediction. Because of the noise, places to live are cheaper near the airport. So lots of people move there. Allow them to live their five years and they will start agitating that the plane noise is offensive, and start trying to get some government to do something about the noise. The proper response to such people is to tell them that they can move back wherever they came from if they no longer find the trade between chearp housing and noise to their advantage, but if there are a lot of them (many potential votes) the airport may be hit with a lot of restictions. My sympathies to the airport builders and owners -- they just got handed a ``you can't win'' situation... -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa