Posted on 02/20/2007 5:37:00 PM PST by Pharmboy
I know what you mean...my cleverness even gets to me sometimes.
Yes, your cleverness is indistinguishable from that of Hugo Chavez who wants to seize private property in the name of Bolivarian Revolution.
BTTT
One of the questions I'd have about the disposition of this land is When did the university acquire that particular parcel? If they've owned it for 200 years, which seems likely, then I would have to agree that state or federal government or a private preservation group should step in and buy the land from them, compensating them fairly (which would be horrendously expensive, but worth it). If they acquired the land more recently, then I have less sympathy for their case, because anybody who buys historically important land must be aware that all sorts of roadblocks will be thrown up to prevent development. But still, as precious as this land is, somebody should buy it from the university instead of compelling them to sacrifice it. The fifth amendment does, I believe, compel just compensation in the event of a government taking.
BUMP! (First time I ever saw a fight on one of your threads!)
NOWHERE did I say that we should "seize their land." Princeton University may not have even KNOWN of the significance of this part of their land.
If you knew any history or had visited Princeton you would know this. Nassau Hall is one of the most significant buildings from colonial times that still stands, but you'd never know it when visiting Princeton. They downplay the history at this University to such an extant that they appear to almost be ashamed of it.
Hugo Chavez indeed. Idiot.
Yes--that is a reasonable point, but another is that they have a large amount of land and they could move their buildings over a few hundred feet and not be violating anything. At the time, this was all farmland and I would not imagine Princeton acquired this land way back then. I would guess it was within the last 100 years.
This guy was either in a bad mood, drunk, or just wanted to fight. Or, he may just be an idiot.
"We're simply talking about swapping," Hurwitz said, "I would dare say that most Americans, if they knew about [this swap proposal], would say the same thing."
I'm a very strong supporter of historic preservation--in fact, I do a good bit of volunteer work to preserve historic lands and structures within a hundred miles or so of where I live--and I'm definitely on your side in this dispute. But I would not be so quick to conclude that the university acquired this land recently. It's been there a long time; it's one of the oldest schools in America.
Even so, I think that certain institutions have a public responsibility to help preserve the heritage of history in this country. It would be no economic hardship to the university to move its proposed buildings elsewhere on its site and this would at the least generate great good will for the school.
In many places, anybody who refrains from building on some sensitive land, whether a wetland, an area where an endangered species lives, a historic site, or an important viewshed, often gets a credit so they can get permission to do something else they wanted to do. This credit exchange arrangement reduces the amount private organizations or government groups have to fork out to buy the jeopardized land. Yall could try something like that for this land.
Your obsession with cross-dressing and lack of respect for private property rights is fascinating.
Even though your post clearly violates the posting standards of FR, I won't complain because I think it demonstrates what kind of a person you are.
I also hope the Princeton situation can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction without the use of Bolivarian Revolution techniques.
The reason I think that the land was acquired recently is that the university (as you may know) has traditionally moved eastward from Nassau Hall. The Institute for Advanced Studies was founded 76 years ago and likely bought that land at the time (it is west of Nassau Hall and had been part of a farm). All the local preservationists are asking them to do is have the new construction elsewhere on their 500 acres and not RIGHT NEXT to the battlefield.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.