Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
90% of America is undeveloped. We don't need to protect swamps 10 miles from Manhattan. There are plenty of other swamps in the middle of nowhere in the 90% of undeveloped America that can act as bio support for the rest of the country. The Meadowlands can be paved over and developed, it would be no problem environmentally.
This is only your opinion, and we know what opinions are like.......
I suppose you think they should build high rises in Central Park?? Why not, the people in NY can go to the middle of nowhere.
And then in 40 years, we can knock it all down and start all over again, creating new money and new jobs. Circle of life.
Not the "circle of life" the circle of hell is more like it....... Why do we have to constantly tear down and replace with something gaudier than the last thing. Was Giant stadium in a state of disrepair??
I got torn down and replaced by what looks like a big circular fan my parents used to put in the middle of the living room before a/c. For how many extra seats? or boxes for corporations and the 1%. How many tax dollars went into that???
An arena that's empty, that will be the next thing to tear down, since it's empty it's probably not being maintained properly, which will be the next excuse for why it has to be torn down. Probably all part of the plan for a new casino, and the taxpayer will probably be on the hook for that too. That's the real circle of life, build something with taxpayer money using the, "It creats jobs." excuse.
Then 20yrs later, declare it obsolete, and again use taxpayer money to replace with some other monstrosity when the previous monstrosity was probably no paid off because the replaced the bonds at the 10yr mark with other bonds to update it. But hey, we provide jobs for the bond traders.......
Not the "circle of life" the circle of hell is more like it....... Why do we have to constantly tear down and replace with something gaudier than the last thing. Was Giant stadium in a state of disrepair?? I got torn down and replaced by what looks like a big circular fan my parents used to put in the middle of the living room before a/c. For how many extra seats? or boxes for corporations and the 1%. How many tax dollars went into that??? An arena that's empty, that will be the next thing to tear down, since it's empty it's probably not being maintained properly, which will be the next excuse for why it has to be torn down. Probably all part of the plan for a new casino, and the taxpayer will probably be on the hook for that too. That's the real circle of life, build something with taxpayer money using the, "It creats jobs." excuse. Then 20yrs later, declare it obsolete, and again use taxpayer money to replace with some other monstrosity when the previous monstrosity was probably no paid off because the replaced the bonds at the 10yr mark with other bonds to update it. But hey, we provide jobs for the bond traders.......
You missed the most important part: Sell the land to private interests in the open market. No tax breaks, no subsidies, no deals, no public involvement. Actually, the public would get billions from the sale of the land. Those funds should be refunded, not redirected.
The private interests could build and tear down whatever they want to their heart's content. On their own dime. Under their own steam. With their own money.
Whatever part of the Meadowlands is owned by any government or public agency needs to be sold to private interests at public auctions. And the private interests can proceed to do any damned thing they want with it with their own money. I would prefer a huge casino myself, but shopping malls, apartments, townhomes, golf courses, are all fine. And if the envirolunatics want to come up with their own private money and buy the land and preserve it as undeveloped, that's cool too.
The wealth that could be generated by allowing this useless land to be creatively and profitably developed by private interests boggles the mind.
Of course, I am realistic and don't expect this. The enviroretards will come up with studies and faux science that declare that the world will end if anyone were to even think about Meadowlands development. Same as AGW. Same technique. Armageddonism works for any BS environmental blockade you care to think of. Standard operating handbook procedure. We'll all die. Especially the cheeeeeeldren.
In fact, the brain waves themselves that are generated from contemplating or visualizing Meadowlands development can cause environmental disturbance. It can be proven by environmental "scientists". They have statistics and, like the existence of God, you cannot prove those statistics are wrong.
Not the "circle of life" the circle of hell is more like it....... Why do we have to constantly tear down and replace with something gaudier than the last thing. Was Giant stadium in a state of disrepair??
why is that even your problem to contemplate? if you want to buy something and keep it as it is for hundreds of years, that is up to you. why you think that you should have the power to say that others can not do this, that is "mind boggling" to me.
You missed the most important part: Sell the land to private interests in the open market. No tax breaks, no subsidies, no deals, no public involvement. Actually, the public would get billions from the sale of the land. Those funds should be refunded, not redirected.
The private interests could build and tear down whatever they want to their heart's content. On their own dime. Under their own steam. With their own money.
Whatever part of the Meadowlands is owned by any government or public agency needs to be sold to private interests at public auctions. And the private interests can proceed to do any damned thing they want with it with their own money. I would prefer a huge casino myself, but shopping malls, apartments, townhomes, golf courses, are all fine. And if the envirolunatics want to come up with their own private money and buy the land and preserve it as undeveloped, that's cool too.
The wealth that could be generated by allowing this useless land to be creatively and profitably developed by private interests boggles the mind.
Of course, I am realistic and don't expect this. The enviroretards will come up with studies and faux science that declare that the world will end if anyone were to even think about Meadowlands development. Same as AGW. Same technique. Armageddonism works for any BS environmental blockade you care to think of. Standard operating handbook procedure. We'll all die. Especially the cheeeeeeldren.
In fact, the brain waves themselves that are generated from contemplating or visualizing Meadowlands development can cause environmental disturbance. It can be proven by environmental "scientists". They have statistics and, like the existence of God, you cannot prove those statistics are wrong.
"Enviroretards" But the "put more money in my pocket while I destroy the environment, pollute the air, the water" is OK?
The Meadowlands have ecological value, but it could hurt your pocketbook so we must destroy it. Rampant, unchecked development has created traffic and flooding problems in NJ. But "people should be allowed to use their land as they want", regardless of the consequences downstream. The Passaic River Basin used to take 24 hrs to crest now it take 8. The 100yr floodplain of the Passaic River covers 40K acres of which 50% is fully developed 20,000 homes, business and public buildings lie in the floodplain. Annual expected losses are $240million. The losses from Hurricane Irene in 2011 were $1billion. Let's just let people do what they want with their own property with their own money and tough on the future consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
why is that even your problem to contemplate? if you want to buy something and keep it as it is for hundreds of years, that is up to you. why you think that you should have the power to say that others can not do this, that is "mind boggling" to me.
Regardless of the future consequences to others?? My question about "Giants" stadium being replaced was, "How much public (taxpayer) money went towards this?"
Bad enough the NFL was a "tax-exempt" organization until 2015.
"Enviroretards" But the "put more money in my pocket while I destroy the environment, pollute the air, the water" is OK?
The Meadowlands have ecological value, but it could hurt your pocketbook so we must destroy it. Rampant, unchecked development has created traffic and flooding problems in NJ. But "people should be allowed to use their land as they want", regardless of the consequences downstream. The Passaic River Basin used to take 24 hrs to crest now it take 8. The 100yr floodplain of the Passaic River covers 40K acres of which 50% is fully developed 20,000 homes, business and public buildings lie in the floodplain. Annual expected losses are $240million. The losses from Hurricane Irene in 2011 were $1billion. Let's just let people do what they want with their own property with their own money and tough on the future consequences.
Regardless of the future consequences to others?? My question about "Giants" stadium being replaced was, "How much public (taxpayer) money went towards this?"
Bad enough the NFL was a "tax-exempt" organization until 2015.
Easy solution. Eliminate publicly subsidized flood insurance. Only private flood insurance will be available. It will be prohibitively expensive. People won't be able to afford it. Property values will nosedive in flood areas. People will stop building or purchasing homes in flood areas. Those that do will build them in such a way that a flood will be a non-event or at most an inconvenience, but it will be their choice to be inconvenienced every few years. Problem solved.
It is government involvement and subsidizing private stupidity that has caused the flood debacle. If individuals actually had to pay the freight to occupy flood zones, you would see very little development there. By socializing these costs, we have increased them, and actually encouraged the misfeasance.
Eliminate subsidies for all flood insurance. That will solve the problem. As usual, de-socializing a problem is the moral and best solution. Those who commit the crime should do the time (in this case financially). Accountability. Responsibility. Individual Focus. Freedom.
Regardless of the future consequences to others?? My question about "Giants" stadium being replaced was, "How much public (taxpayer) money went towards this?"
Bad enough the NFL was a "tax-exempt" organization until 2015.
the problem is that you are manufacturing fictitious future consequences. tearing down old stuff to build new stuff in its place is a positive thing all around. your manufactured consequences should stop you from doing it, not other people.
Easy solution. Eliminate publicly subsidized flood insurance. Only private flood insurance will be available. It will be prohibitively expensive. People won't be able to afford it. Property values will nosedive in flood areas. People will stop building or purchasing homes in flood areas. Those that do will build them in such a way that a flood will be a non-event or at most an inconvenience, but it will be their choice to be inconvenienced every few years. Problem solved.
It is government involvement and subsidizing private stupidity that has caused the flood debacle. If individuals actually had to pay the freight to occupy flood zones, you would see very little development there. By socializing these costs, we have increased them, and actually encouraged the misfeasance.
Eliminate subsidies for all flood insurance. That will solve the problem. As usual, de-socializing a problem is the moral and best solution. Those who commit the crime should do the time (in this case financially). Accountability. Responsibility. Individual Focus. Freedom.
You're a real estate agent, do you sell houses in a flood zone/plane???? What do you tell prospective buyers?? Do you tell them they can get "federally subsidized flood insurance" (socialization oh my!) Do tell them you believe it shouldn't be subsidized?? Or do you just take the money (commission) and run?
"Those who commit the crime should do the time," (Yeah right unless you work on Wall St for a "too big to fail bank.")
the problem is that you are manufacturing fictitious future consequences. tearing down old stuff to build new stuff in its place is a positive thing all around. your manufactured consequences should stop you from doing it, not other people.
What's manufactured about asking, "How much taxpayer money went for the new stuff??" and was the fully functional 'old stuff' paid off? or was that expense rolled over into the new???
I know provides construction jobs and more importantly bond trader jobs on Wall St.
You're a real estate agent, do you sell houses in a flood zone/plane???? What do you tell prospective buyers?? Do you tell them they can get "federally subsidized flood insurance" (socialization oh my!) Do tell them you believe it shouldn't be subsidized?? Or do you just take the money (commission) and run?
"Those who commit the crime should do the time," (Yeah right unless you work on Wall St for a "too big to fail bank.")
I tell buyers that flood zones are an increasing danger as floods become more frequent and deeper and that they shouldn't buy there. In fact, I show them the actual flood maps, and instruct them that living near a flood zone can be nearly as bad as living within one. There are non-flood zone properties that are literally surrounded by flood zones such that ingress and egress are impossible during a flood. Which is a prime target for a looter. I know this because I did some part time looting back in high school... Anyway, if they still want to go ahead, then I take the money and run, of course. I can only advise, not control.
As for your ridiculous comment that banks should not be too big to fail... I agree! The government should be out of banking and commerce. Completely. The big banks, insurance companies, auto companies, et al, should absolutely fail and go belly up if that's what their economic decisions lead them to.
What's manufactured about asking, "How much taxpayer money went for the new stuff??" and was the fully functional 'old stuff' paid off? or was that expense rolled over into the new???
I know provides construction jobs and more importantly bond trader jobs on Wall St.
when government does it, it is criminal. taxation is theft. government has no right to our money. but when government isnt involved, it is good for private businesses to buy things, tear down old things and build new things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
