There is a pretty substantial difference between eminent domaining the land required for rail, and taking much more than necessary so that the state can flip it for a profit.
Money is fungible, it's pretty unreasonable to say that a given housing development is required because the state needs money to fund a railway. They could raise taxes or what have you. (My preferred solution would be land value tax, which would make the railway self-funding, but that's a bigger argument).
Well, in the real word eminent domain literally is routinely used to hand the land to developers to profit from. Famously, shopping malls, but any development can be framed as an economic benefit.
I hate when people seem to justify handing private land to private developers to build a shopping mall for profit but get the vapors when it’s the public wanting to build a subway. Same as the conservatives who did bush v gore and then get the vapors when the other side wants its calvinball relief when the circumstances justify it.
The slippery slope is real and once you open the bloodgates to private interests you really ought to open it to others as well. Like draw me a coherent line as to why a developer sucking up land via eminent domain should be legally allowed but the public building a train is not. If you want to argue the former should be rolled back then fine but that’s a thing that will ruffle numerous feathers, and in the meantime we have a public who’s tapping their watch waiting for the train.
Abstract disagreement with the legislative and legal realities doesn’t make the existence of eminent domain for speculation or the calvinball court ruling any less of a concrete power. This is a thing we do, and if you want to campaign to end eminent domain then fine but right now the law says we can eminent domain it, develop it, and sell it.
I dont think it is as routine as you think and citizens typically get completely outraged by actions like Kelo v. New London, and are far more OK with eminent domain for public infrastructure. Do you really think public sentiment is the opposite?
>Like draw me a coherent line as to why a developer sucking up land via eminent domain should be legally allowed but the public building a train is not
My whole point is that building a train is a legitimate use (IMO), but taking the adjacent land just to sell to developers make the state money is not.
there is also a difference between "much more to flip for profit" and "a reasonable amount to sustainability run a railway system". People don't want to pay more taxes, so having a self sufficient system would be preferable one to one that constantly requires taxpayer funding.
Taxes or fares are a sustainable ways to run a railway system.
It isnt about sustainability, it is about who pays, and the public not wanting to pay for something you use isnt a good enough reason size private property from a small number of individuals.
By that logic, we could do away with taxes entirely if the state simply confiscated everything it needed form select individuals.
Yes if we take the logic to ridiculous ends we can have the state confiscate everything it needs from select individuals, but the problem with that is that it's ridiculous. it's absurd. we can use different logic in different places.
using eminent domain to get land for a shop attached to a train station isn't a slippery slope to the cops coming in and confiscating your car just because they want it.
Taxes and fares aren't enough to run a transportation system properly because of politics and culture.
