<p>
[quote]
Columbia said the condemnation was necessary to support the university's "vision" for a new campus; school President Lee Bollinger called the victory "a very important moment in the history of the university."</p>
<p>It was an important, if not especially proud, moment for Columbia -- but it was surely a bigger moment in the lives of those West Harlem business owners, as their property gets taken away to promote the "vision" of what is, in fact, a multibillion-dollar corporation servicing the daughters and sons of the wealthy, the powerful and the connected.
<p>Are Ivy League and other high-ranked private schools like Stanford / MIT really perceived as “multibillion-dollar corporation servicing the daughters and sons of the wealthy, the powerful and the connected.”… ?</p>
<p>Sadly, this “woe-unto-thee” part will probably never play out. I doubt the poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised will even think of trying to change the rules of the game (much less be allowed to, if they do end up thinking about it).</p>
<p>One must be pretty intellectually bankrupt to not see any difference between a voluntary market transaction and the government showing up on someone’s property with a bulldozer and check for that it determines the property to be worth.</p>
<p>“the sons and daughters of the powerful, the wealthy and the connected”?
First off, its really uninformed people who continue to make these stereotypes because while there are definitely rich, legacy and wealthy kids out there, the majority of the kids are ones who’ve worked their asses of for most of their lives and whose parents have worked very hard to save enough money to afford their kids’ education.
I say this as an international student whose parents come from a very humble background and knows the kind of hard work you have to put in to get into a place like Columbia. Putting a label on Columbia as an institution for the “rich, powerful wtvr” is pretty upsetting to a lot of people.
Columbia2002 - what point are you trying to prove by putting that in quotes?</p>
<p>Secondly, Columbia has produced several distinguished alumni where in their influence lies. Its not like Bollinger is the Chief Justice whose making the decisions here. Columbia’s campus plan in West Harlem is supposed to comprise several initiatives to promote and support local businesses in west-harlem and even a public school for local kids. The property was given to Columbia using eminent-domain but through a legitimate and long drawn legal procedure. And in the long run, the fact that Columbia’s campus in West Harlem will do the local community a lot of good is something most people probably know and expect. (Look at what Morningside Heights was like 20 years ago).</p>
<p>Seriously,
The bitterness in this article is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Absolutely. The author is a scholarly law professor type, but he clearly wrote this article to resonate with the type of people who read the NY Post.</p>
<p>dude columbia 2002,
if you want to criticize columbia, you have to criticize the U.S government. Columbia got this deal under eminent domain, and god knows how many times U.S government used eminent domain to further development. To nit-pick on this one instance is extremely arbitrary and unfair.</p>
<p>Columbia PAYED for the land they were getting to further education. If you want to complain, take it up with supreme court dude</p>
<p>I can criticize more than one of the parties involved. I can be disappointed that Bollinger – a supposed champion of certain freedoms set forth in our Bill of Rights – holds other of those freedoms in utter contempt. And I do have major problems with the all-too-frequent instances of states’ use of their eminent domain powers for non-public uses, as this sort of use of the eminent domain power is just business as usual for many states. (FYI, states – not the feds – hold the eminent domain power.)</p>
<p>uh…you obviously don’t know much about government? lol dude, you sounded eloquent there when you said “I can be disappointed that Bollinger – a supposed champion of certain freedoms set forth in our Bill of Rights – holds other of those freedoms in utter contempt” haha but uh eminent domain is condoned and strengthened by the constitution…</p>
<p>article 1, section 7 lets congress do these kind of things to further development. supreme court, apex of social justice, agreed.</p>
<p>if you think youre right…(lol)…well argue it to supreme court or something. idk why youre complaining on this site. If you want sympathy…lol. w/e.</p>
<p>“Are Ivy League and other high-ranked private schools like Stanford / MIT really perceived as “multibillion-dollar corporation servicing the daughters and sons of the wealthy, the powerful and the connected.”… ?”</p>
<p>By conservative tabloids? Sure.</p>
<p>While I’m not in love with the idea of eminent domain (though I’m also not in love with the fetishization of private property), I’d expect to see the headline “Rich bully is getting his way” if Sprayregen won.</p>
<p>First off, eminent domain is, for most practical purposes, a power invoked by the states rather than the federal government. And here it was New York – not the feds – that used the eminent domain power. So your talk about what “kinds of things” the Constitution authorizes Congress to do demonstrates your total ignorance.</p>
<p>Secondly, there is no constitutional authorization for eminent domain. A state has the power to use eminent domain simply on the basis of its existence as a sovereign. (See [BOOM</a> COMPANY V. PATTERSON, 98 U. S. 403 :: Volume 98 :: 1878 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez](<a href=“Boom Company v. Patterson :: 98 U.S. 403 (1878) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center”>Boom Company v. Patterson :: 98 U.S. 403 (1878) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center) – “The right of eminent domain…requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.”) So your attempt to sound smart by talking about articles and sections of the constitution once again fails.</p>
<p>1) while it is ny that authorized it, theres a freaking reason it was tried in Supreme Court, not local or state courts. Its a constitutional issue that breeches past a local dispute</p>
<p>2) i use to think eminent domain was cruel too, but how the hell else would you expect the country to develop in terms of infrasctructure? there are some instances when I think eminent was fair and others when I thought it was a bit unfair, but oh well, I have come to understand the world is not always fair grow up you hoe</p>
<p>3) the constitution doesn’t specify eminent domain because the founding fathers meant for it to be flexible. it is implied under article 1, section 7 - quote from a professor, so guess what you hobo? I take the words of a professor over you ignorant as. what are you anyway, jobless reject that columbia didn’t want, so you go on CC and complain? lmao dude, so freaking low</p>
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the main reason people were upset about the use of eminent domain in this case was because it wasn’t being used for infrastructure, but rather the expansion of a university.</p>