Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The public benefit in this case (i.e., marginal increase in tax revenues) is too remote in this case for my tastes. The public benefit should be direct, and not simply a proxy for a tax increase.
I'm not familiar with the RR cases. Did the RR actually own the land or did it just get a easement? I think it makes a major difference.
|
C'mon, there's a clear public benefit to urban development. [ASIDE]I can't believe I'm having this conversation with a conservative.[/ASIDE]
On the railroad cases, I think the railroads got the land, but what difference does it make? If you lay down RR track, you can't build a firehouse on top of it.
