LA Needs More Schools
August 25, 2005 – 10:16 amOn the evening news last night, one of the local network affiliates ran a story about how residents of one of Los Angeles’ many, many neighborhoods were protesting over plans to build a new school in the area. The most prominent plan being pushed at the moment involved a city takeover of some nearby homes so that the land could be used for the new school.
As one would expect, the affected residents were upset and decided to protest at one particular gathering spot in the neighborhood. The network affiliate sent a cameraman and a reporter to cover the ordeal, and behind the reporter during the newscast stood many angry residents with signs in their hands. One of these signs struck me: “Don’t through us out of our homes.”
Wow. If ever there was a sign that made the argument better for building more schools in the area, I’ve not seen it. When you’re putting together signs that are meant to convey the idea that there is sufficient education taking place in your area of residence, you put a little extra time into making sure the sign is grammatically correct. I suppose maybe this person had checked the sign, saw no misspellings, and decided it was good to go, not realizing they had used the wrong word, wanting “throw” instead of “through”. It made for a nice chuckle, though.
8 Responses to “LA Needs More Schools”
It makes me sad that we have the capability of putting a man on the moon, we can virtually eliminate polio, smallpox, and plague, and yet the idea of a 100% literacy rate is nothing more than a pipe dream. I can understand the anger of these residents at being thrown out of their homes. However, the city has to compensate them for their loss, and it is for the greater good. But as somewhat of a career student, the though of rallying against building a school, effectively rallying against education is terrifying to me. Were they being moved so that a shopping mall, a water treatment plant, a freeway, or a garbage dump could be built, a protest would certainly be justified.
The CIA Factbook lists the US literacy rate as 97% and defines literacy as “age 15 and over can read and write”. However, apparently they don’t take into account being able to read and write properly or well. I’m sure if you took those things into account, the literacy rate would drop to at least 75%, which wouldn’t look good for the world’s leading industrialized nation. I, for one, know that there are on the order of thousands if not millions of people from the South who would make similar mistakes, having seen some of them for myself.
By Adam on Aug 25, 2005 at 10:59 am
Funny and sad at the same time. I myself am vulnerable to the occasional misspelling. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe but it’s true so I can sympathize with this poor fellow. I must say that I do agree with the protestors. The government taking away your land is scary! Imagine buying a house and raising your family in it. Liking your neighbors, kids in a good school you are happy with, close to shops, freeways, transportation. Then the government comes along and takes it away at “fair market value”. I doubt you’d be too happy having to pick up and move cause some city planner has decided your parcel of land is a great place to build.
While I’m sure there are good reasons for doing so in rare circumstances, what the Supreme Court just allowed goes way beyond that. Cities are now taking away people’s property, some of which has been in the family for generations, to build condos. That is very frightening to me and it should be to all Americans.
One of the reasons our coutry is so strong economically is the protection of private property. One of the first things (if not the first) that Alexander Hamilton did as Sec. of the Treasury was to protect the owners of government bonds and establish the importance of private property. Right now the reason we are able to maintain a strong economy while we have such a massive trade and government deficits is because America is such a safe place to invest. How long this will last while you allow things like taking away someone’s land is anyones guess.
Please excuse any improper grammar, misplaced words or misspellings.
I’m sure we could use more schools but I think we have a lot of reasons for our poor educational system.
By Griztown on Aug 25, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Ted, you were the first person I thought of when I was watching the newscast, because one of the men they interviewed explained how much time he and his family had put into renovating the house they were in.
They had sacrificed plenty of money, plenty of weekends that could have been spent doing things that were more fun as a family, and plenty of anxious nights trying to figure out how to accomplish some things they had hoped for their home.
And, like you, I was appalled at the recent Supreme Court decision to which you refer. I read Justice Sanda Day O’Connor’s well-reasoned dissent in that case, and it made me particularly sad when she later retired, knowing how intelligent a justice we lost.
By jjk on Aug 25, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I have to say, I really hope that they manage to evict that one judge (can’t remember which one) in order to build the “Freedom Hotel”.
However, I think that eminent domain is a necessary evil. There are times that the greater good of the community/city/state/nation requires the sacrifices of others. After all, I wouldn’t be here (Oak Ridge would not have been built where it was) without the government having the right to buy up ~100 sq. mi. of farmland in Tennessee for a city, not to mention the countless square miles of valleys that were flooded to create the TVA electrical system.
On the other hand, eminent domain should be reserved as a last resort, and only used for things that benefit the community in specific ways, such as protecting public health, public safety, or providing better educational opportunities. Bolstering the economy (shopping malls, hotels, business/industry) and reducing traffic (freeways) most certainly wouldn’t be allowed in my vision of eminent domain. Additionally, rather than paying market value for property, the government would have to pay something like 1.5x - 3x market value (determined by an independent auditor). Thus not only will the families recover the monetary value of the property, but they will also be compensated for the emotional/psychological issues attached to losing one’s home.
Naturally, people would still be upset, but I think this would be a much fairer system. It has the added benefit of forcing the government to view all other options, not only because of added restrictions, but because the price of taking over private property would be a much bigger factor in the budget of the project.
By Adam on Aug 25, 2005 at 2:46 pm
I believe you meant SandRa Day O’Connor’s dissent.
Haha, I only point that out cause after copying your spelling and pasting it into google to find her dissent (which can be found here) google kindly asked me if I’d like to search under the correct spelling of her name.
But yeah, I’m all for urban renewal but not at the cost of taking away someone’s property to hand it over to someone else whom you’ve decided will use it better. I can see that some neighborhoods might be better served by doing so but I don’t think its worth it regardless of the circumstances. If some developer wants the land, let them buy it from the owners.
By Griztown on Aug 25, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Adam I agree. The government had that right before the latest Supreme Court decision but this latest one gave them exactly the power you mentioned that they shouldn’t have, namely to take away land for economic development. I’ve heard that states are moving to prevent this by passing constitutional ammendments. I hope this is true and that it happens fast. Too bad President “If it’s good for the economy it sounds good to me” Bush won’t act on it at the Federal level but maybe I don’t give him enough credit.
By Griztown on Aug 25, 2005 at 3:23 pm
By jjk on Aug 25, 2005 at 4:27 pm
I was just talking to Greg the other day about Israel’s withdrawl from the Gaza strip. I was saying that I didn’t think Americans (very much including me) really couldn’t comprehend why people were upset about leaving their property, being paid scads of money and moving elsewhere. We live in such a mobile society that land just doesn’t have the same meaning as it does to many other cultures.
There’s obvious differences here, of course. For example, I’m sure these people won’t get “scads” of money as has been mentioned above. I just thought it was an interesting juxtaposition. Sort of a wake up call: I may be in a “segment” of society that is highly mobile (in the spatial sense of the word), but there are plenty of Americans who are not. Is there an official term for “The fallacy of the false consensus”?
By MDA on Aug 25, 2005 at 10:09 pm