Hypotethical issues can be so much more interesting to discuss since they lack the nuances and politics of real situations. So I'll offer this one up.
Let's imagine there is a major city that on the eve of the jet age decided to build an airport somewhere on its northwest outskirts. After this city built the airport and with the growth of air traffic, not only the city area around the new airport grew, but it stimulated an enormous growth in the suburban area beyond, with the vast majority of this areas businesses built due to their proximity to the airport. Residential growth was predicated on this growth as well.
Fast forward into the future. The city needs to expand its airport. The airport is an economic engine for its whole metropolitan engine. Its expansion is viewed as essential if this metro area is to keep its edge.
Problem is the suburban area adjacent to the airport will need to give up a portion of its land for airport expansion. The loss of that land will seriously affect thes suburban communities losing the land.
What to do, what to do?
If you could make a recommendation to this hypotetical city and its equally hypoetical suburbs, what would it be:
Should the suburbs affected realize that their land affects the general good of a much, much larger region for now....and well into the future and agree to sell their land to the eminant domaine requirements of the general community? Should they realize they knew the airport was there before them and that their very growth and development was based on the airport?
-or-
Should the city respect the property rights of the sections of the suburbs in question and, as much as it needs the airport, realize that it is not right for it to take others land?
(note: I'm just grateful we don't have to deal with this type of thorny issue here in Chicago!  )> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment