TP publishes on counterpunch.org

Check it out.


Nadir said...

Go on with your bad self!

Nadir said...

Ahhh, the backroom deal is the cornerstone of American politics and business. The plight of 350 families means nothing if one rich developer can reap greater profits.

But then community farming is just another way for leftists to undermine the capitalist system of conglomerate groceries which are the backbone of American health and well-being, isn't it?

And won't your brother criticize you for contributing to a pinko rag like counterpunch?

Paul Hue said...

The "capitalist system" is merely a manifestation of what people want. "The people" of the US have made "Everyone Loves Raymond", Britney Spears, Milk Duds, Budweiser, and Capt'n Crunch cereal much more popular than what Nadir, Tom, and Paul think out to be. If "the people" want natural, local food, they will get it, I am sure.

But they can't get this by confiscating other people's private property and pressing it into this or any service that we three think people ought to want. Sadly, "the people" of this area are much more interested in getting food from big-box grocery chains.

I certainly join you in oppposing govt programs that favor big-box grocery chains. But I also oppose govt programs to promote what I think people ought to be buying.

Paul Hue said...

Tom: Are you and Nadir proposing that govt agencies confiscate property for what officials believe is desired use? This would be one great way to discourage business investment: convincing prospective owners that their property is subject to confiscation by the government.

I join you and Nadir in wanting people -- perhaps especially poor people -- to grow crops in their neighborhoods and eat the food that they grow. We can raise money to buy property devoted to that purpose, and refuse to sell to those would pay us much more to locate a walmart there.

Tom Philpott said...

Paul, did you read the piece? The developer lost his lawsuits to regain the property; he won it back in a dodgy backroom deal. I don't generally support government takings; but I also don't like sweetheart deals that take place out of public view. The guy is a shmuck, but he had every right to try to regain the land; the government did not have to hand it to him for a third of its value. The original taking may have been unjust, but he was compensated handsomely ($4.7 million in late-80s dollars) for it.

Tom Philpott said...

And, let it be remembered, the original taking wasn't about putting a community garden in a poor neighborhood. It was about putting a electricity- (and stench-) generating trash incinerator in a poor neighborhood.