Particularly when they don't seem very objectivist
Like when they decide that private property rights should be overridden to serve some supposed communal interest (or their own, but not necessarily the property owners', private demands). My Randism may be a little hazy, but I'm pretty sure that overriding private interests by legal force is like original sin for Catholics, it's the thing you're trying to run away from as fast as possible.
In any case, I still don't see how this is such a big deal, even if there isn't popular support.
What I know of public policy suggests that many dumb ideas are popular, and many good ideas are unpopular. . So that's hardly suggesting that we should override private property rights, not the mention the 1st amendment's free exercise clause, or even the decisions of a local zoning board because of external (ie, non-local) demands and concerns.
Jefferson’s DOGE (that was then, this is now)
2 hours ago
Posts
7 comments:
What in the terminology of "condemnation hearing" do you not understand?
Historical landmarks are established by the state or municipality under a private owner who agrees "to restore and maintain said property in perpetuity."
A "mosque" or "prayer center" is a building that serves a religious purpose for Muslims.
For New York to condemn a property to give or sell it to a religious organisation would seem to me to trample on the Constitution in more ways than to give or sell it to a private entity to restore and maintain in perpetuity as a historic landmark.
You're still here?
Any private property may be sold or provided to religious organisations, I don't see where that is prevented by the Constitution, and in particular, where in the Constitution it governs local land use charters and restricts their abilities.
The historical landmark would be established OVER the wishes of the present landowner. In large part because historical landmark status creates certain requirements (among them severe limitations on remodeling or construction). It would not be established at the request of the local landowner. That strikes me as a rather serious violation being made.
NYC seems to have a pretty wide ranging and ongoing problem with condemning property through zoning and corrupt eminent domain cases (see Columbia University's recent case and the Brooklyn Nets ventures), so if they are letting a bunch of Muslims abuse the same system (which they are not), it would hardly surprise me.
The bigger issue is the amount of power zoning boards are given, and the amount of sway eminent domain courts are given to determine which properties shall be condemned and given off for private (non-public) use.
Put differently, churches or Christian organisations can buy land from private parties or the state in seized auctions all the time to expand their operations on the "basis" that that land is valuable to them and isn't so well valued by others. I don't see why this should be any different or somehow violate some huge Constitutional principle on that front.
If the land were deliberately seized and targeted by some private group and an eminent domain abuse case were in progress, then yes, I'd be troubled. But then, I don't see much moral or legal difference between that and moving to declare the location a historical site to somehow obviate the "problem".
Either way you're trampling on private property owners.
I am mistaken this "condemnation hearing" is a prerequisite for demolition.
The historic landmark status was "calendered" in 1989 predating the disposition of the building and land in July of 2009 by about twenty years. The advantage in 1989 for the owners was a reduced real estate tax and continued use of the property for trade and business. As of September of 2001 it could no longer be used for trade or business. And has been a liability to the owners, ever since.
This group of muslims chose this location because of its proximity to "ground zero". They were aware of its pending historic landmark status and knew it might prevent demolition.
For these muslims to attack the system as anti-Islamic is false, these things have been "in the system" for twenty years. It is not a recent developement aimed at thwarting their plans and currently this set of buildings is being used as a "prayer center". Regardless of the ruling this will not change.
I am concerned by the charge against any opposition to what a muslim group wants to do being labeled "Islama-phobic."
The general reason that opposition to a Muslim group is label islama-phobic is that it is opposition to a Muslim group on the basis that it is a Muslim group. I don't see what the problem is that this line of criticism doesn't apply or shouldn't be used. It is fair to say that it is being overused at times, much as general racism calls are (though there's a fair amount of that in the news lately that seems deserved too).
It is more fair to say that calling it some form of bigotry does little to oppose the reasoning being presented against having a mosque or Islamic-owned community center in this particular place. I have not used that criticism precisely for that reason. If the owners/operators of Cordoba do, then that is their affair. It is hardly an effective method of dissuading criticism.
I do however question the mention of "they choose this site specifically because of its proximity to GZ". I don't see how that should be a problem for anyone, or suggestive of a problem. Demonstrate why it should be and I'll respond to that point. Otherwise, it seems sort of superfluous to the argument over the "historical" nature problem of the current property. This factor could just as easily be a "good" thing as a "bad" thing in my view.
The more general criticism is still the methods being applied to private land use. Any private organisation, regardless of its tax exempt status as a religious organisation, should be free to purchase property or use the same zoning commission rulings as other bodies and people to acquire properties they feel would be useful for the growth and operation of that organisation. There are some peculiar elements in this particular property because of its tagging and location which are attracting more attention. But as I said, I'd rather people were fed up with Columbia University than this, which is a minor zoning board squabble by comparison. That's a lot more like a Constitutional question (Kelo like) and thus deserving of time and energy to combat.
Let me summarize.
The proposed issue I have is largely with the rhetorically opposition to having a mosque or Islamic organisation building anywhere near GZ. Almost none of that opposition centers on practical legal issues that can and should be settled at the city zoning ordinance level.
Almost all of it centers on the arbitrary objection to something Muslim being placed near "hallowed ground" or some other nonsense.
The specific point mentioned here that I found incredibly absurd was that it was an objectivist! suggesting using zoning legal codes to override private property rights in order to presumably satisfy some private misgivings over the choice of other private property owners doing something with property they wished to purchase and use for their own ends. That just seemed incredibly absurd and an inconsistent application of objectivist philosophy (which above many other forms of philosophy, such as Islamic jurisprudence for example, seems to require a rather strict adherence in order to exist at all in a coherent form).
Post a Comment