Walmart gets federal funding... for widening a street?

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I'm suggesting, because I've seen it with my own eyes in several places in this area, where there are "public" streets, that really only serve to connect a corporation's parking-lot with other public streets. There is no privately-owned, "adjacent property" - all of it is owned by the corporation. Thus those streets get paid for by the gov't, but are really only benefiting the corporation and their workers. And in at least one case, the corporation set up a guard shack at the entrances, and would surely prohibit me continuing to use that "public" road to use to walk to the other side of the town, because it encircles the corporation's property. (But in this specific case, it used to be a useful public throughfare. Now it is not. I daren't test simply walking past the guard shack, I don't feel like getting hassled.)

And I would assume that you actually checked with the local goverment and are completely and 100% sure that the roadways in question are in fact public roadways and not on private property. If this is the case you wouldn't mind providing the name and location of the roads. Please include the limits of the roadway in question, its location in the city, the city and of course the state.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem, if you couldn't understand my example given. The question was, how is there any real difference, between using public funds ("welfare"), for a single sole/primary beneficiary, whether they are a corporate entity or a private one? I posit that there isn't any. And if you use the argument that there are "trickle-down" benefits, then I can turn around and argue the same thing - that as a private person, I have resource needs (just like a corporation does, but in different ways), and thus that ("welfare") money that I recieve, will get spent back out into the economy, thus fueling it, just like a corporation does, when they "create jobs", and "pay wages". In both cases the money is flowing back out. So again, how are they any different, in principal?

I will say it again, you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You have a fundemental lack of any understanding of even the basics of the economics involved. Everyone that reads your comparisons of welfare and public roadway construction is stupider for having read them. I am not an economics teacher and I will not spend my afternoon debating you on your complete lack of understanding on this. Drop the subject.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No, it's not. Because that determines, practically, who is the real beneficiary here. Anything else, is deceptive political hand-waving.

So you would support that the government consider who is the beneficiaries of roadway construction? Say for example if you are black the government doesn't build roads to your house or if you are asian they only build gravel roads. I mean if we are going to use the basis of determining roadways to be constructed as some arbitrary subject like whether the largest beneficiary is a corparatation then in fact you are advocating that the govenment actively engage in discrimination. But I'm sure you are a compasionate bigot and in fact reserve the discrimation only for things that are popular to hate.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
But is it, in fact, a public throughfare, or should it really be designated a "private way", in which case the local gov't would have no further responsibility for upkeep? I've seen some of those around here, they are a "street", but really only serve to connect a group of houses' driveways, to another public street. Generally, they are in a bad state of disrepair. Of course, Wal-Mart should have the funds available to prevent that from ever happening to their "driveway".

I addressed your complete misinterpretation of what the funds are for with less than 5 minutes of google usage. In fact you spent how many hours making posts with failed ASSumptions about the project without even the minimum amount of effort in actually researching before commenting. Consider for a moment that is one of the reasons you are so bloody ignorant about what you talking about.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: rahvin
A public road is not "corporate welfare". If the road is entirely on public right-of-way ANY of the adjacent property owners are entitled to use the ROW to access their property. You are in fact the one that is trying to distinguish between uses. Based on your statements you think that because Walmart is a large corparate structure that they should somehow be responsbile for funding and constructing public roadways? You want to allow some use of public ROW but not another you want to discrimate against those with wealth, what does that make you?

Developers building housing developments often have to pay at least a portion of the cost of any road improvements that are required to handle the extra traffic the development will add to the roads. Why should Walmart get a free ride? Certainly other people are entitled to use the road, but I highly doubt the road would need to be widened from 2 lanes to 5 in the forseeable future if Walmart weren't there. I don't think they should have to pay the full cost, but at least part of it.

If all of the New Jersey tax dollars that went to backwards states like Arkansas stayed in New Jersey, we could widen OUR roads so it wouldn't take 2 hours to get to New York.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: mugs
Developers building housing developments often have to pay at least a portion of the cost of any road improvements that are required to handle the extra traffic the development will add to the roads. Why should Walmart get a free ride? Certainly other people are entitled to use the road, but I highly doubt the road would need to be widened from 2 lanes to 5 in the forseeable future if Walmart weren't there. I don't think they should have to pay the full cost, but at least part of it.

If all of the New Jersey tax dollars that went to backwards states like Arkansas stayed in New Jersey, we could widen OUR roads so it wouldn't take 2 hours to get to New York.

Depending on the size of the development the developer can be assigned to pay a fee for improvements that may be necessary to the public ROW. This is usually assesed in the form of an impact fee assesed by the local government and depending on the jurisdiction is usually used soley to upgrade water and sewer facilities to accomidate the new development.

Walmart has had their headquarters in the same location for a number of years, in fact i would wager it has been in place for over a decade. Given that they have not expanded the size of their headquarters how would you asses this fee? Are you advocating that all adjacent property owners should be responsible for paying for the reconstruction of roads that serve their property? So for example when your local jursidiction repaves the roadway in front of your home you should be sent a bill for your portion of the reconstruction costs? Or are you like Larry advocating that the govenrment discriminate against an entity based on some arbitrary criteria?

Here is a simple fact, roads need to be reconstructed on a periodic basis. Concrete has a life cycle of around 40 years, asphalt around 20 years.( The associated costs of each are analyzed and amortized over the life of the project to select the paving method.) Given this fact, that roads must be reconstructed on a periodic basis, it is rather simple to extrapolate that the roads that serve such unpopular businesses as walmart will need to be resonstructed. Explain to me how that makes the reconstruction of this road the responsibility of walmart?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
And in at least one case, the corporation set up a guard shack at the entrances, and would surely prohibit me continuing to use that "public" road to use to walk to the other side of the town, because it encircles the corporation's property. (But in this specific case, it used to be a useful public throughfare. Now it is not. I daren't test simply walking past the guard shack, I don't feel like getting hassled.)

And I would assume that you actually checked with the local goverment and are completely and 100% sure that the roadways in question are in fact public roadways and not on private property. If this is the case you wouldn't mind providing the name and location of the roads. Please include the limits of the roadway in question, its location in the city, the city and of course the state.

No, I'm not 100% sure, but I know that it used to be widely travelled, in the past, by both pedestrians and local passenger vehicles, before a corporate change of ownership some years back. But posting that already gave me the idea to go and check, which I am indeed interested in doing - who would I contact? Zoning board? Is there some sort of local "official town map of public streets"? (Granted, a town that I lived in before, still had a certain street listed on a map as a through way, when it had been blocked off on both sides by a house plunked right down in the middle of it, years and years ago. I've seen otherwise public ways barricaded off, where that street meets a much more heavily-trafficed street, by the local residents, to eliminate cross-traffic. Yet it's still a public street, financed/repaired by the town, if the condition of it is any evidence of that fact.

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No, it's not. Because that determines, practically, who is the real beneficiary here. Anything else, is deceptive political hand-waving.

So you would support that the government consider who is the beneficiaries of roadway construction?

Well, yes. In fact, they already do. Is "the public" going to be the beneficary, or some private entity. Locally, "private ways" are not funded/repaired by the local gov't. If this is in fact a public through-way, and not just a point-to-point link between Wal-Mart corporate HQ's parking-lot and a main street, then I don't have any real issue with it. My entire line of debate was focusing on Wal-Mart as the sole/primary beneficiary here, which Amused seemed to imply in his early posts that was the case here.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Say for example if you are black the government doesn't build roads to your house or if you are asian they only build gravel roads. I mean if we are going to use the basis of determining roadways to be constructed as some arbitrary subject like whether the largest beneficiary is a corparatation then in fact you are advocating that the govenment actively engage in discrimination.

I don't believe that I've suggested that at all. Only that public funds should be spent for public benefit, and not the sole/primary benefit of a singular private party, with the dubious expectation of "trickle-down" benefits for the rest of the public.

Originally posted by: rahvin
But I'm sure you are a compasionate bigot and in fact reserve the discrimation only for things that are popular to hate.

So now opposing the concept of corporate welfare, makes me a "bigot"? ... Do they still teach English in gov't schools any more? I'm starting to wonder, based on that (completely unwarranted, IMHO) accusation.

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
But is it, in fact, a public throughfare, or should it really be designated a "private way", in which case the local gov't would have no further responsibility for upkeep? I've seen some of those around here, they are a "street", but really only serve to connect a group of houses' driveways, to another public street. Generally, they are in a bad state of disrepair. Of course, Wal-Mart should have the funds available to prevent that from ever happening to their "driveway".

I addressed your complete misinterpretation of what the funds are for with less than 5 minutes of google usage. In fact you spent how many hours making posts with failed ASSumptions about the project without even the minimum amount of effort in actually researching before commenting. Consider for a moment that is one of the reasons you are so bloody ignorant about what you talking about.

If you failed to see the context in which my views were being expressed, then congratulations, you need a remedial reading-comprehension class. OTOH, I did ask if anyone knew for a fact which case this was, if this was an actual public throughfare or not. Thank you for that information, apparently I need a remedial course in internet-based map lookups. (I didn't realize that google did maps now, honestly.)

Perhaps the fact that I see so many examples of specific gov't welfare where I live, that it has made me rather biased against it, and thus leads me to ranting against those sorts of abuses of public funds. Public funds are for public improvements, not some giant petty-cash fund for giant corporates looking for any free ride that they can get. Considering Wal-Marts already well-known issue with healthcare for their workers, this sort of thing for roadway improvement for themselves would be right up the same alley. (Pardon the pun.)

 

[jadinolf]

Good for Wally World.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryNo, I'm not 100% sure, but I know that it used to be widely travelled, in the past, by both pedestrians and local passenger vehicles, before a corporate change of ownership some years back. But posting that already gave me the idea to go and check, which I am indeed interested in doing - who would I contact? Zoning board? Is there some sort of local "official town map of public streets"? (Granted, a town that I lived in before, still had a certain street listed on a map as a through way, when it had been blocked off on both sides by a house plunked right down in the middle of it, years and years ago. I've seen otherwise public ways barricaded off, where that street meets a much more heavily-trafficed street, by the local residents, to eliminate cross-traffic. Yet it's still a public street, financed/repaired by the town, if the condition of it is any evidence of that fact.

You aren't sure, but from your statements above you appear to be 100% positive that the roads are in fact "corporate welfare" as you like to call it.

Most states government DOT websites will include a map that shows the roadways that they are responsible for. This can vary greatly depending on the state but in general you will be dealing only with major arterials in urban areas. If you doubt the validity of that map call the local DOT office and question them. The other public roads in your area will be administered by a local transportation authority that could be a special entity, administered throuh your country or township or could be handled by your local city. Although many of these entities will not have good maps available online a simple call to the local authority using that little thing called a telephone should allow you to check whether any roadway is in the public domain.

In general, if they are putting up guard shacks and barricades the roadway IS NOT a public roadway and the actual owner that is responsible for the maintence of the facility is tired of the general public using the facility.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Well, yes. In fact, they already do. Is "the public" going to be the beneficary, or some private entity. Locally, "private ways" are not funded/repaired by the local gov't. If this is in fact a public through-way, and not just a point-to-point link between Wal-Mart corporate HQ's parking-lot and a main street, then I don't have any real issue with it. My entire line of debate was focusing on Wal-Mart as the sole/primary beneficiary here, which Amused seemed to imply in his early posts that was the case here.

You are drawing an articifical line. Is walmart not part of the public? Are their employees automatically downgraded to the status of non-citizens? Why are you discriminating against wallmart? How is this different than being a racist? How does it make you less of a bigot to deny someone elses rights because it's popular to hate them?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I don't believe that I've suggested that at all. Only that public funds should be spent for public benefit, and not the sole/primary benefit of a singular private party, with the dubious expectation of "trickle-down" benefits for the rest of the public.

So if you happen to buy a house at the end of a long street that no one else lives on the street the government should hand the road over to you to maintain? Or should they maintain it but just send you a bill every year? How do you resolve your bias against walmart into a public policy that treats everyone including walmart equally?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
So now opposing the concept of corporate welfare, makes me a "bigot"? ... Do they still teach English in gov't schools any more? I'm starting to wonder, based on that (completely unwarranted, IMHO) accusation.

There is no such thing as corporate welfare unless you are dealing with a direct (cash) subsidy to the corporation. Such things have occured, I would call the 9/11 subsidies to the airlines corporate welfare that should have never been extended. Outside the rare circumstances where that does occur people like yourself like to point to public projects that corporations benefit from as "corporate welfare" while they don't say anything if the roads they use are fixed, in fact on the contrary they get upset when the roads they do use are not improved. It's hypocracy of the highest form.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
If you failed to see the context in which my views were being expressed, then congratulations, you need a remedial reading-comprehension class. OTOH, I did ask if anyone knew for a fact which case this was, if this was an actual public throughfare or not. Thank you for that information, apparently I need a remedial course in internet-based map lookups. (I didn't realize that google did maps now, honestly.)

Oh I saw the context you expressed your opinions and assumptions in and that were completely and totally based on false premises. I was also aware by those statements that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about and had failed to do even the minimum amount of research necessary to verify that what you were posting was in fact a valid or correct statement of events. You then misinterpred completely what Amused said and built onto those false assumptions with some more baseless and misguided assumptions at which point I jumped into the thread to point out that you don't know what you are talking about and everyone else reading this thread was dumber after reading all the crap you posted.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Perhaps the fact that I see so many examples of specific gov't welfare where I live, that it has made me rather biased against it, and thus leads me to ranting against those sorts of abuses of public funds. Public funds are for public improvements, not some giant petty-cash fund for giant corporates looking for any free ride that they can get. Considering Wal-Marts already well-known issue with healthcare for their workers, this sort of thing for roadway improvement for themselves would be right up the same alley. (Pardon the pun.)

Every entity in this country is entitled to the same protections and benefits of this government without discrimination or exception. Current US law and court judgments have declared that corporations are seperate entities that are entitled to almost all the same rights as regulard citizens. Just because a corporate is wealthy or has a rather large gross profit does not give government or you the right to decide that they are responsible for something that you yourself would not be responsible for it if it was you that was in walmarts situation.

You have advocated discrimination in this thread. You wish that discrimination to be against a corporation that you personally and other feel is kosher to hate. But good people like Amused realize that in doing so you create a dangerously slippery slope that would allow discrimation based on whatever arbitrary category the popular culture decides to hate. Your ideas on this are wrong and I will oppose attempts by socialists like yourself that wish to make slaves of those you envy.

 

[Pocatello]

A lot of cities put in millions of dollars to build huge stadiums for sport teams while neglecting others stuffs, such as reparing city streets and build better schools.

 

[Gibson486]

Happens alot. Market Basket in Ma gets state funds and tax breaks because they widen streets everywhere they put a super market.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: rahvin
You aren't sure, but from your statements above you appear to be 100% positive that the roads are in fact "corporate welfare" as you like to call it.

You're mixing two things there. I am sure that, at least in the past, it was a publically-accessable way. Whether it is currently, is what I am unsure of. If the roadway is private, but the public is paying for the maintenance of such, then indeed, I would call it "corporate welfare", just the same as if public moneys were being spent for the paving of someone's private driveway as well.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Most states government DOT websites will include a map that shows the roadways that they are responsible for. This can vary greatly depending on the state but in general you will be dealing only with major arterials in urban areas. If you doubt the validity of that map call the local DOT office and question them. The other public roads in your area will be administered by a local transportation authority that could be a special entity, administered throuh your country or township or could be handled by your local city. Although many of these entities will not have good maps available online a simple call to the local authority using that little thing called a telephone should allow you to check whether any roadway is in the public domain. In general, if they are putting up guard shacks and barricades the roadway IS NOT a public roadway and the actual owner that is responsible for the maintence of the facility is tired of the general public using the facility.

Well, I'm going to have to do some research on this obviously. I didn't think of it at first, but is it possible for a private entity to purchase a (formerly) public roadway?

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Well, yes. In fact, they already do. Is "the public" going to be the beneficary, or some private entity.

You are drawing an articifical line. Is walmart not part of the public?

Using the same argument, you could argue that a private citizen is part of the public too, and thus worthy of being appropriated "their fair share" (but privately) of the "public funds". (Thus socialist welfare would be perfectly acceptable to you?)

Did you not read the comments of the founder fathers of this country, in regards to democracy, and how it always eventually fails, once they discover that they can vote themselves part of the public treasury?

Sadly, those wise words seem to have been forgotten, in the vast game of greed, in which everyone wants to claim "I got me some", before the next person. Special treatment for special interests, destroy society. "Fairness" under the law is the only way that lawful order can be maintained. That's why those statues of the woman ("lady justice"? I don't recall the name) holding the scale have her wearing a blindfold as well.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Are their employees automatically downgraded to the status of non-citizens?

I'm not going to touch that one with a 10-ft pole, but I could throw in a jibe here about Wal-Mart's hiring practices, and how they might not even need to be "downgraded" in that case.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Why are you discriminating against wallmart? How is this different than being a racist? How does it make you less of a bigot to deny someone elses rights because it's popular to hate them?

The fact that you continue to throw accusatory insults my way, because I don't support public welfare for large and profitable corporations, and have dropped down to "racist", is telling. I'm not suggesting in any way to deny Wal-Mart's "rights", only that they don't deserve any greater ones than anyone else does.

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I don't believe that I've suggested that at all. Only that public funds should be spent for public benefit, and not the sole/primary benefit of a singular private party, with the dubious expectation of "trickle-down" benefits for the rest of the public.

So if you happen to buy a house at the end of a long street that no one else lives on the street the government should hand the road over to you to maintain?

It's called a "driveway", and I've seen plenty of them on large houses out in the country. Should the citizens of the town in which I live, be forced to pay for paving my driveway?

Originally posted by: rahvin
Or should they maintain it but just send you a bill every year? How do you resolve your bias against walmart into a public policy that treats everyone including walmart equally?

I don't know if you've ever lived out in the country, but for things like light poles - the local gov't does indeed send a yearly (monthly?) bill for the electricity used for the lightpost, to the local residents who abut the public street on which the light-post is situated. So yes, they do do that, in some circumstances - billing local residents for "infrastructure". I've seen it first-hand. (This was in rural IN, btw, probably not too much different than AK, in some respects.)

Originally posted by: rahvin
There is no such thing as corporate welfare unless you are dealing with a direct (cash) subsidy to the corporation.

Would that line of thinking also apply, to things like "Food Stamps", subsidized housing, etc., for private individuals? "If it's not cash - it's not welfare". I personally find that line of thinking to be a bit self-limiting, failing to see the forest for the trees.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Such things have occured, I would call the 9/11 subsidies to the airlines corporate welfare that should have never been extended. Outside the rare circumstances where that does occur people like yourself like to point to public projects that corporations benefit from as "corporate welfare" while they don't say anything if the roads they use are fixed, in fact on the contrary they get upset when the roads they do use are not improved. It's hypocracy of the highest form.

Have you ever considered, that if the public funds are being used to repair roadways that primarily have singular corporate beneficiaries, that that indeed might be the reason why there are no further funds available to be spent, for fixing the roadways nearer to or used by other private citizens/poorer members of society than rich corporations? I've seen that too, actually.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Oh I saw the context you expressed your opinions and assumptions in and that were completely and totally based on false premises.

It was unknown to me if the actual physical street in question was a public through-way or not. Amused mentioned that Wal-Mart was likely the sole beneficiary, so I keyed off of that and began my rants. All of my comments, when taken in context, were along the line of thinking that the street in question was essentially a "driveway". If that base fact was incorrect, I apologize for not doing more research beforehand, but that doesn't automatically make my following discussion comments, when taken in the original context, to be incorrect.

Originally posted by: rahvin
I was also aware by those statements that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about and had failed to do even the minimum amount of research necessary to verify that what you were posting was in fact a valid or correct statement of events.

It is a bit out-of-the-ordinary though - this post was spot-on about what generally happens:

Originally posted by: mugs
Developers building housing developments often have to pay at least a portion of the cost of any road improvements that are required to handle the extra traffic the development will add to the roads. Why should Walmart get a free ride? Certainly other people are entitled to use the road, but I highly doubt the road would need to be widened from 2 lanes to 5 in the forseeable future if Walmart weren't there. I don't think they should have to pay the full cost, but at least part of it.
If all of the New Jersey tax dollars that went to backwards states like Arkansas stayed in New Jersey, we could widen OUR roads so it wouldn't take 2 hours to get to New York.

IOW, those that are making the most use of the road, if that use is "excessive" compared to all other parties using that "public" road - then they are often asked to foot at least part of the cost of the bill, for the roadway improvements, by the local gov't. I've seen that a few times around here as well. For example, truckers pay more to use the turnpike than passenger cars do.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Every entity in this country is entitled to the same protections and benefits of this government without discrimination or exception. Current US law and court judgments have declared that corporations are seperate entities that are entitled to almost all the same rights as regulard citizens. Just because a corporate is wealthy or has a rather large gross profit does not give government or you the right to decide that they are responsible for something that you yourself would not be responsible for it if it was you that was in walmarts situation.

Thank you - exactly! I wouldn't want the local town to be paving/repairing the driveways of private citizens either, with public money.

(However, I don't agree with corporations having fully the same level of rights that other natural-born persons do, namely God-given "human rights", that corporations have no inherent "right" to, instead those rights are allocated to it by the state. The equation between corporate persons and natural-born persons, was one of the poorer decisions that the courts have made over the years, just in my personal opinion. But most rights, in terms of legal protections that would apply regardless of whether someone is natural-born, or artificial, should apply equally. Corporations are naturally subservient though, by design. It's only when that is forgotten, that chaos ensues. That's when it's time to start ripping up corporate charters.)

Originally posted by: rahvin
You have advocated discrimination in this thread.

No, I have advocated "fairness", with regards to the use of public funds, and against socialist welfare, whether that be for corporations or private citizens. Special interests should not benefit, at the cost to the public. IMHO.

Originally posted by: rahvin
You wish that discrimination to be against a corporation that you personally and other feel is kosher to hate.

I love it how you and Amused, take my comments about "no greater rights for corporations", and "no public welfare for corporations", and try to twist it and turn it around as if I'm some sort of "evil anti-corporate discriminatory bigot". Well, I am slightly anti-corporate, but I'm not suggesting discrimination nor bigotry here. For the record, the personal accusations are unfounded and unappreciated.

Amused, based on some of his prior comments in other threads, seems to feel that corporations should not be subject to civil law (aka "the will of the people"), nor have to pay taxes, but yet, should benefit from the public funds (taxes) collected from the people, having them distributed to corporate interests instead of public ones.

How much more twisted and discriminatory can you get, really?

And to suggest that, by my suggestions in opposition to that sort of "citizen slave-workler scenario", I am promoting "slavery of corporations", is utterly ludicrous, since corporations were created "by the will of the people", and can likewise be controlled, and even destroyed, by the same. There's nothing inherently wrong, not discriminatory about that. I get annoyed, when people seem to suggest that corporate entities should be above the law, and that they should be allowed to effectively "steal" from me, legally.

Originally posted by: rahvin
But good people like Amused realize that in doing so you create a dangerously slippery slope that would allow discrimation based on whatever arbitrary category the popular culture decides to hate. Your ideas on this are wrong and I will oppose attempts by socialists like yourself that wish to make slaves of those you envy.

What... in... the... F- ?

My diatribe, throughout this thread, has been against socialist welfare. If you couldn't see that, within the context of what I was arguing (which given the info on the streets may well have been incorrect), then you do need to brush up on the ol' reading comprehension.

I don't see how arguing for fairness, between people and corporations, is somehow suggesting that I am advocating slavery - quite the opposite - I feel that a private citizen should not be taxed (enforced at gunpoint by the gov't), to fund something that is primarily wholly beneficial only to a private corporation - because in essence that *is* slavery for the individual. And that's what both you and Amused seem to be advocating, if you are supportive of corporate welfare. (Of which Amused has already shown that he is, I'm not certain about you yet. Hopefully that's not the case.)

 

[mobobuff]

VirtualLarry vs. Amused & Co.

Round 3.... FIGHT!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Well, I'm going to have to do some research on this obviously. I didn't think of it at first, but is it possible for a private entity to purchase a (formerly) public roadway?

Yes you do need to do some research, I suggest you start by studying your own states eminent domain and public property laws. To answer your question, yes formerly public roads that are no longer served by the public and some that are, can and are sold to private entities. More than should be IMO but that is a local jursidictional issue that is no business of anyone but the people who live in the community where it is occuring.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Using the same argument, you could argue that a private citizen is part of the public too, and thus worthy of being appropriated "their fair share" (but privately) of the "public funds". (Thus socialist welfare would be perfectly acceptable to you?)

Did you not read the comments of the founder fathers of this country, in regards to democracy, and how it always eventually fails, once they discover that they can vote themselves part of the public treasury?

Sadly, those wise words seem to have been forgotten, in the vast game of greed, in which everyone wants to claim "I got me some", before the next person. Special treatment for special interests, destroy society. "Fairness" under the law is the only way that lawful order can be maintained. That's why those statues of the woman ("lady justice"? I don't recall the name) holding the scale have her wearing a blindfold as well.

I have said it already, DO NOT try to compare welfare that benefits a single individual to a roadway project that serves all the public traveling along the route (meaning those passing through and those that own the property that abuts the public ROW. Your comparisons is apples to oranges, completely ignorant and not even worthy of discussion so stop resorting to it.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
The fact that you continue to throw accusatory insults my way, because I don't support public welfare for large and profitable corporations, and have dropped down to "racist", is telling. I'm not suggesting in any way to deny Wal-Mart's "rights", only that they don't deserve any greater ones than anyone else does.

You have proclaimed up and down that if this road dead-ended at only walmart that you consider it "corporate welfare" and wrong without regard to the circumstances of that situation. Have you considered for a moment that even though the road only currently serves walmart that the road could in fact abut numerous other property owners providing essential access to those properties even if they are not developed? Yet when I attempt to raise the possibility you scream up and down about the economics and quoting founding fathers without regard to what I'm saying.

Let me let you in on something that is not a secret at all. Public funds cannot be used to construct a roadway into and on private property. If it occurs the politician or offical that authorized it is liable to (and should be IMO) end up in federal jail for missappropriation of public funds. Knowing that little piece of trivial information what exactly do you think of what you have been aruging about?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It's called a "driveway", and I've seen plenty of them on large houses out in the country. Should the citizens of the town in which I live, be forced to pay for paving my driveway?

If I had been talking about a driveway I would have said that but I called it a street for a reason. Consider the other posibilities, property can be owned and not developed.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I don't know if you've ever lived out in the country, but for things like light poles - the local gov't does indeed send a yearly (monthly?) bill for the electricity used for the lightpost, to the local residents who abut the public street on which the light-post is situated. So yes, they do do that, in some circumstances - billing local residents for "infrastructure". I've seen it first-hand. (This was in rural IN, btw, probably not too much different than AK, in some respects.)

My city bills directly for the street lights just as you are discussing. This has little bearing on the discussion. Public roadways aren't paid for (at least in my jurisdiction) by monthly assesments. Every state I know of uses a per user fee to pay for roadway construction. That per user fee is assesed in the form of a gasoline tax. Those taxes are used to pay for construction and maintence. Regardless, if you think for a minute that the people would support a paying for the roads in front of their own homes you are insane. Under that situation a homeowner that lives on a major collector or other large street would end up footing the bill for damage due to the public passing through the area and faster than you could blink the roads you didn't directly pay for would be closed to you. Think about that for a minute. Also consider that maintence on a road although infrequent could result in a multi-thousand dollar assesment per person on low use roads and 10's of thousands of dollars for those residents that abut'ed high usage facilities not to mention the difficulty with interstates and arterial roadways.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Would that line of thinking also apply, to things like "Food Stamps", subsidized housing, etc., for private individuals? "If it's not cash - it's not welfare". I personally find that line of thinking to be a bit self-limiting, failing to see the forest for the trees.

Why do you insist on continuing to make this rediculous comparison, is it your only line of arguement?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Have you ever considered, that if the public funds are being used to repair roadways that primarily have singular corporate beneficiaries, that that indeed might be the reason why there are no further funds available to be spent, for fixing the roadways nearer to or used by other private citizens/poorer members of society than rich corporations? I've seen that too, actually.

Unlike you, I do not believe that govenment should consider the use of any facility outside what is required to meet design requirements. I do not support such an invasive and illegal system to decide whether the roadway should be reconstructed. The governing factors should be and are, the traffic load, the status of the existing roadway and the future usage of the facility. Anything that considers who is using the facility is illegal.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It was unknown to me if the actual physical street in question was a public through-way or not. Amused mentioned that Wal-Mart was likely the sole beneficiary, so I keyed off of that and began my rants. All of my comments, when taken in context, were along the line of thinking that the street in question was essentially a "driveway". If that base fact was incorrect, I apologize for not doing more research beforehand, but that doesn't automatically make my following discussion comments, when taken in the original context, to be incorrect.

Even if you would classify the street as a driveway does not make it so. There are certain rights held with public ROW. For example walmart could not bar you from driving on it, they could not stop peaceful protests on it and any number of other things the public ROW can be used for. In reality Walmart would be insane to allow the public ROW into their private property and in reality you will find a siutation where a public road that goes into a single property and stops highly unusual and I would probably be supprised if it even existed in this nation.

What most people like yourself see if a headquarters at the end of a long road with nothing else developed on it. This is not unusual, I can think of a couple locally. This DOES NOT mean that only one property is serviced by the public ROW. What it means is there is only one DEVELOPED property. There is a hugely significant difference between the two.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
IOW, those that are making the most use of the road, if that use is "excessive" compared to all other parties using that "public" road - then they are often asked to foot at least part of the cost of the bill, for the roadway improvements, by the local gov't. I've seen that a few times around here as well. For example, truckers pay more to use the turnpike than passenger cars do.

What you quoted was in reference to new development. So what is your determining factor for what determines excessive usage? Do you base it on the market capitalization of the company in question? Do you punish success? Or do you base your discrimination solely on how popular the company is in the popular culture.? You are suggesting some arbitrary criteria for assigning construction costs, so tell me, how do you asses them? What is the criteria? How do you ensure that you aren't favoring one group over another?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No, I have advocated "fairness", with regards to the use of public funds, and against socialist welfare, whether that be for corporations or private citizens. Special interests should not benefit, at the cost to the public. IMHO.

Fairness is the cause socialists use to wrap their ideaology in a public friendly terms and is the basis of their hyprocracy. What they propose is exactly the opposite and what you have advocate in your search for "fairness" is exactly the opposite, you propose penalizing a company you don't like, using the banner of fairness. A truely fair system does not evaluate the means of anyone being served by the public funds, it serves everyone as equally as possible.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I love it how you and Amused, take my comments about "no greater rights for corporations", and "no public welfare for corporations", and try to twist it and turn it around as if I'm some sort of "evil anti-corporate discriminatory bigot". Well, I am slightly anti-corporate, but I'm not suggesting discrimination nor bigotry here. For the record, the personal accusations are unfounded and unappreciated.

Amused, based on some of his prior comments in other threads, seems to feel that corporations should not be subject to civil law (aka "the will of the people"), nor have to pay taxes, but yet, should benefit from the public funds (taxes) collected from the people, having them distributed to corporate interests instead of public ones.

How much more twisted and discriminatory can you get, really?

I do not presume to speak for Amused but your lack of understanding of economics is part of the problem. Corporate taxes are DOUBLE taxation. That is the basis of the arguement being used and if you examine and research why that is being said you will know that a system that double taxes people does not reach the fairness you adamently claim you seek. You say you seek fairness, but by your statements you seek a system that punishes selective usage.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
And to suggest that, by my suggestions in opposition to that sort of "citizen slave-workler scenario", I am promoting "slavery of corporations", is utterly ludicrous, since corporations were created "by the will of the people", and can likewise be controlled, and even destroyed, by the same. There's nothing inherently wrong, not discriminatory about that. I get annoyed, when people seem to suggest that corporate entities should be above the law, and that they should be allowed to effectively "steal" from me, legally.

How are they stealing from you? Explain that, show me an instance and not a blind reaction to left wing socialist propganda. By your own statments you would like to see a system implimented that punishes corporations and their employees. A system I might add that on the surface appears to solely based on how popular that corporation is.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
What... in... the... F- ?

My diatribe, throughout this thread, has been against socialist welfare. If you couldn't see that, within the context of what I was arguing (which given the info on the streets may well have been incorrect), then you do need to brush up on the ol' reading comprehension.

I don't see how arguing for fairness, between people and corporations, is somehow suggesting that I am advocating slavery - quite the opposite - I feel that a private citizen should not be taxed (enforced at gunpoint by the gov't), to fund something that is primarily wholly beneficial only to a private corporation - because in essence that *is* slavery for the individual. And that's what both you and Amused seem to be advocating, if you are supportive of corporate welfare. (Of which Amused has already shown that he is, I'm not certain about you yet. Hopefully that's not the case.)

I have attempted to point out numerous times that although you claim you seek fairness and a just system you are in fact seeking a system that treats one group unequally,a system that punishes Walmart because they are successful and it's popular right now to hate them. You claim you don't want a system that uses tax payer money to only benefit one entity but on the other would scream bloody murder if the local authority sold the road leading to your home to a private corporation that started charging you tolls to access your property.

What you don't realize is that property access in this country is often a constitutionaly (state level) protected right. There is are designated permanent easements in every county, township and parish in this country set aside for property access. The local authority has the right and the obligation to build and maintain reasonable access to that property. If the property owner develops or divides his property he is obligated to provide access to sub-divided parcels and the local authority may require him to build the roads that will provide the access and turn them over to the authority. Once the road IS public property is MUST be maintained. To propose that because Walmart is big they should pay for the road in front of their Headquarters is absurd, illegal and patently socialist.

 

[SunnyD]

OMG... for the love of quoting!

 

[rufruf44]

20,000 people? Good grief I didn't know they had so many in that one area....
And if my memory serves me correctly, it is a public street/throughway. Its also best to avoid it at 7-8am, 5-6pm for obvious reason.

 

[ni4ni]

Oink Oink..It is all about the pork in Congress...

 

[mithrandir2001]

At least Pennsylvania has the improperly named I-99, the Bud Shuster Highway, which happens to run past the former congressman's son's car dealership.

 

[Phokus]

Look, this is why what walmart is doing is bad (from an economist's point of view):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

In economics, rent-seeking takes place when an entity seeks to extract uncompensated value from others by manipulation of the economic environment -- often including regulations or other government decisions.

The word "rent" in this sense is not directly equivalent to its usual use meaning a payment on a lease, although it stems from Adam Smith's division of incomes into profit, wage, and rent. [1] (http://www.friesian.com/rent.htm) Rent-seeking behavior is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking behavior, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions. [2] (http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/government/RentSeeking.html) However, in practice, it is often difficult to separate beneficial profit-seeking from detrimental rent-seeking. It can be a matter of opinion.

Rent-seeking is often associated with lobbying for economic regulations such as tariffs. For instance, if FooCorp, a domestic producer of widgets, can lobby the legislature to levy a tariff upon widget imports, then FooCorp can sell its widgets at a higher price. If the legislature bans the import of widgets, or effectively bans them through high tariffs, then the additional price extracted can be quite significant. Collusion between firms and the government agencies tasked to regulate them can be a haven for rent-seeking behavior, especially when the government agency must rely on the firms for knowledge about the market.

The moral hazard of rent-seeking can be considerable. If a firm can calculate the cost of lobbying, bribing, or otherwise causing the government to enact a favorable regulation, then it can compare this cost with that needed to accomplish a similar benefit within the market -- for instance, by capital improvements or increased efficiency. If "buying" a favorable regulatory environment is cheaper than building more efficient production, then a firm may reap incomes entirely uncompensated.

Claims that a firm is rent-seeking therefore often accompany allegations of government corruption, or the undue influence of special interests.

Therefore, if a firm can calculate that bribing government officials is cheaper than competing in the market, then they will bribe officials EVERY SINGLE TIME. Do you want government subsidized corporations? Our defecit is large enough, we don't need to give out more handouts.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: rahvin
I have said it already, DO NOT try to compare welfare that benefits a single individual to a roadway project that serves all the public traveling along the route (meaning those passing through and those that own the property that abuts the public ROW. Your comparisons is apples to oranges, completely ignorant and not even worthy of discussion so stop resorting to it.

And you fail to realize, that my diatribe was in relation to the street in question not being a public through-way. If it in fact is, then it obviously does benefit more than just a singular entity. But in the context of a situation in which it did not, then I would compare it directly to private welfare. How is it really any different - in that specific hypothetical context in which I was making that argument - whether that singular recipient were a large rich and power corporate, or a private individual citizen? I don't think that you ever actually answered that question, btw.

Originally posted by: rahvin
You have proclaimed up and down that if this road dead-ended at only walmart that you consider it "corporate welfare" and wrong without regard to the circumstances of that situation. Have you considered for a moment that even though the road only currently serves walmart that the road could in fact abut numerous other property owners providing essential access to those properties even if they are not developed?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but why would undeveloped properties, require roadway improvements, in the form of expansion? That's a rather bizarre straw-man to bring up. If indeed there were private citizens also being served by that roadway, then it would be a totally different question, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by: rahvin
Let me let you in on something that is not a secret at all. Public funds cannot be used to construct a roadway into and on private property. If it occurs the politician or offical that authorized it is liable to (and should be IMO) end up in federal jail for missappropriation of public funds. Knowing that little piece of trivial information what exactly do you think of what you have been aruging about?

Brilliant, Dr. Watson. Now, given the assumption that is what was happening in this scenario, how can you fault me for ranting against such a thing? Btw, politicos don't often actually ever end up in federal prison, they just step down, don't get re-elected, or get shuffled-off into some other less-visible office position. Look at the mess that is the Big Dig here.

Originally posted by: rahvin

It's called a "driveway", and I've seen plenty of them on large houses out in the country. Should the citizens of the town in which I live, be forced to pay for paving my driveway?

If I had been talking about a driveway I would have said that but I called it a street for a reason. Consider the other posibilities, property can be owned and not developed.

And there is already a roadway there, correct? So why would it need to be expanded, if the other property is undeveloped? If there were multiple "residents", along that street, then I wouldn't have any issue with the actual existance of the street, since it would in fact be a public street. I suppose that I should hold you to the same standards that you held me to - are there any actual undeveloped lots abutting that street?

Originally posted by: rahvin

in some circumstances - billing local residents for "infrastructure". I've seen it first-hand.

My city bills directly for the street lights just as you are discussing. This has little bearing on the discussion.

Why does it have little bearing? It's an example in which infrastructure costs, are not distributed globally over the gov'ts tax-base jurisdiction, but directly assessed to those members of society that benefit most from that infrastructure in proportion. IOW, if that same basic rule-of-thumb was upheld in the case of Wal-Mart's street, then they should have to pay the majority of the roadway expansion costs. There's currently a debate going on in MA, about whether or not residents in the western part of the state, which is sparsely populated, should pay equal or proportial fees to the Turnpike Authority, as compared to those in the densely-populated eastern part of the state. (IOW, the "hicks" in western MA don't want to be forced to subsidize the Big Dig's cost overruns, themselves largely the result of extreme political graft.)

Originally posted by: rahvin
Public roadways aren't paid for (at least in my jurisdiction) by monthly assesments. Every state I know of uses a per user fee to pay for roadway construction. That per user fee is assesed in the form of a gasoline tax. Those taxes are used to pay for construction and maintence. Regardless, if you think for a minute that the people would support a paying for the roads in front of their own homes you are insane.

Large commercial buildings, which would cause a noticable increase in traffic loads on the streets, are often assessed an additional fee for the necessary roadway development work, as mugs pointed out.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Under that situation a homeowner that lives on a major collector or other large street would end up footing the bill for damage due to the public passing through the area and faster than you could blink the roads you didn't directly pay for would be closed to you. Think about that for a minute. Also consider that maintence on a road although infrequent could result in a multi-thousand dollar assesment per person on low use roads and 10's of thousands of dollars for those residents that abut'ed high usage facilities not to mention the difficulty with interstates and arterial roadways.

What do you think that the east-vs-west turnpike fee dispute in this state is exactly about? (Admittedly, the turnpike is a "limited-access" highway, I'm not certain that it's not entirely public, but it's not free either. It's not exactly like your neighborhood streets, but it forms an excellent example for discussion, especially since it's very difficult to leave Boston, without being on the pike briefly, and paying a toll just to leave the city.)

Originally posted by: rahvin

Would that line of thinking also apply, to things like "Food Stamps", subsidized housing, etc., for private individuals? "If it's not cash - it's not welfare". I personally find that line of thinking to be a bit self-limiting, failing to see the forest for the trees.

Why do you insist on continuing to make this rediculous comparison, is it your only line of arguement?

Huh? You're the one that claimed that it wasn't welfare unless it was in the form of cash explicitly, I was simply disagreeing with that viewpoint.

Originally posted by: rahvin

Have you ever considered, that if the public funds are being used to repair roadways that primarily have singular corporate beneficiaries, that that indeed might be the reason why there are no further funds available to be spent, for fixing the roadways nearer to or used by other private citizens/poorer members of society than rich corporations? I've seen that too, actually.

Unlike you, I do not believe that govenment should consider the use of any facility outside what is required to meet design requirements. I do not support such an invasive and illegal system to decide whether the roadway should be reconstructed. The governing factors should be and are, the traffic load, the status of the existing roadway and the future usage of the facility. Anything that considers who is using the facility is illegal.

Actually illegal, huh? You might want to tell that to the local gov't agencies, the ones that assess the additional roadway development fees, for additional roadway infrastructural enhancement work, that was only necessary due to the existance of those certain parties.

Originally posted by: rahvin
Even if you would classify the street as a driveway does not make it so. There are certain rights held with public ROW. For example walmart could not bar you from driving on it, they could not stop peaceful protests on it and any number of other things the public ROW can be used for. In reality Walmart would be insane to allow the public ROW into their private property and in reality you will find a siutation where a public road that goes into a single property and stops highly unusual and I would probably be supprised if it even existed in this nation.

Oh really? Now I'm going to have to go around to all of the local corporate office parks and take some ics; ... because there are in fact plenty of them around here.

Originally posted by: rahvin
What most people like yourself see if a headquarters at the end of a long road with nothing else developed on it. This is not unusual, I can think of a couple locally. This DOES NOT mean that only one property is serviced by the public ROW. What it means is there is only one DEVELOPED property. There is a hugely significant difference between the two.

Well, I suppose I would have to look at some property/lot diagrams and maps to be certain. But when there's a major corporation, and they want their address to be such-and-such street, basically a "vanity street name", I would be surprised to find other private citizens sharing a neighboring street address. (For example, are there any "Joe Public, 357 Microsoft Way, Redmond WA" addresses, for private persons? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it would strike me as highly unusual.)

Originally posted by: rahvin
What you quoted was in reference to new development. So what is your determining factor for what determines excessive usage? Do you base it on the market capitalization of the company in question? Do you punish success? Or do you base your discrimination solely on how popular the company is in the popular culture.? You are suggesting some arbitrary criteria for assigning construction costs, so tell me, how do you asses them? What is the criteria? How do you ensure that you aren't favoring one group over another?

Again, what in the H- are you going on about? A simple metric of the increased traffic, and increased load/wear on the road, should be sufficient for the town engineers. I don't see how in the world that is "punishing" success - I guess you don't feel that successful corporations should pay taxes, either, right? Or that you see taxes assessed, as a "punishment", right? There is a reason, that tractor-trailer trucks pay higher taxes, because they cause more wear-and-tear on the roads, and their use of such is for commerce, and not just private transportation. What I am trying to point out is that is not some form of "discrimination", but an attempt to more fairly assess the costs, apportioned proportionally to use, of the public infrastructure. It's really that simple.

Originally posted by: rahvin

No, I have advocated "fairness", with regards to the use of public funds, and against socialist welfare, whether that be for corporations or private citizens. Special interests should not benefit, at the cost to the public. IMHO.

Fairness is the cause socialists use to wrap their ideaology in a public friendly terms and is the basis of their hyprocracy. What they propose is exactly the opposite and what you have advocate in your search for "fairness" is exactly the opposite, you propose penalizing a company you don't like, using the banner of fairness. A truely fair system does not evaluate the means of anyone being served by the public funds, it serves everyone as equally as possible.

Funny, because my model, in which the infrastructural requirements/costs, to society, are apportioned in cost to the users of that infrastructure, proportionally, which much more resembles a free-market model, than yours, in which some are forced to subsidize the costs of others - that is socialism, especially when it is enforced by the gov't using force.

So explain again how it is "unfair", to ask Wal-Mart to pay their "fair share" of costs in terms of paying for their "public"-provided infrastructure? Or how forcing others to subsidize those costs, is not socialism at its finest.

Infrastructural costs, should be considered a normal cost of doing business, IMHO, and should be planned for, in accordance with their projected growth. I mean, should the electric power (another infrastructural service), for Wal-Mart, be subsidized by all of the private individuals living in the area as well?

Originally posted by: rahvin
I do not presume to speak for Amused but your lack of understanding of economics is part of the problem. Corporate taxes are DOUBLE taxation.

How so? Corporations are created "to serve the public good", and given certain legal rights, rights that individual citizens don't have - in exchange, the gov't taxes their existance. In a way, corporations are "legal slaves", with the corporation's owners, and the public, by way of having legal power and jurisdiction over the corporate charter being the "slave-owners". The additional priviledges granted by gov't, include the ability to, in the case where the "slave" breaks the law, to insulate the "slave-owner" from charges stemming from those legal infractions, except in extreme cases as decided by a court of law. But legally, they exist as a seperate entity, and that entity is likewise taxed.

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I get annoyed, when people seem to suggest that corporate entities should be above the law, and that they should be allowed to effectively "steal" from me, legally.

How are they stealing from you?

If Amused and yourself got your wishes, and corporations were excepted from taxation, and yet, were able to avail themselves the benefits of the public purse's dispursion, then they indeed would be "stealing" from me - no different than a private welfare recipient, in fact. If you honestly can't see that, then I'm sorry.

Originally posted by: rahvin
By your own statments you would like to see a system implimented that punishes corporations and their employees. A system I might add that on the surface appears to solely based on how popular that corporation is.

Again, your projection. Please do not put words into my mouth.

Originally posted by: rahvin
I have attempted to point out numerous times that although you claim you seek fairness and a just system you are in fact seeking a system that treats one group unequally,a system that punishes Walmart because they are successful and it's popular right now to hate them.

No, actually that's entirely your projection. I have made numerous comparisons, again and again, in this thread, of how corporate welfare is really no different than private welfare. The fact that you continue to make those false claims about me, shows how blind you are, because you obviously haven't actually read anything that I've said, and instead just spew pro-corporate dogma. By stereotyping the critics that you claim to oppose, in a manner in which they have not conducted themselves - you paint your own train of discussion in a very poor, even flickering, light.

Originally posted by: rahvin
You claim you don't want a system that uses tax payer money to only benefit one entity but on the other would scream bloody murder if the local authority sold the road leading to your home to a private corporation that started charging you tolls to access your property.

I don't believe that is legal, but then again, I've never argued in this thread, that Wal-Mart's corporate HQ should be walled off, and not allowed any roadway access to the outside world. If that's what you are implying, then now you're just getting silly.

Originally posted by: rahvin
What you don't realize is that property access in this country is often a constitutionaly (state level) protected right. There is are designated permanent easements in every county, township and parish in this country set aside for property access.

Yes. I do realize that. And?

Originally posted by: rahvin
The local authority has the right and the obligation to build and maintain reasonable access to that property.

And they have the legal right to assess the appropriate fees, in order to do so. For example, an "abandoned" property, that you own - if you do not maintain it to "community standards" (let weeds grow 3' high, for example) - the town can send one of their employees to your property to mow it - and then they can send you a bill for it!

Originally posted by: rahvin
If the property owner develops or divides his property he is obligated to provide access to sub-divided parcels and the local authority may require him to build the roads that will provide the access and turn them over to the authority. Once the road IS public property is MUST be maintained. To propose that because Walmart is big they should pay for the road in front of their Headquarters is absurd, illegal and patently socialist.

But if Wal-Mart claims that they need the road enlarged, just for them? They should be asked to (at least partially) fund the expansion roadwork. The gov't job is to provide basic infrastructure services. If some entity wants the "super deluxe" version, they should be forced to pay to "biggie size it", to use a popular phrase.

IOW, just because Wal-Mart "lives" there, and they snap their fingers and ask the local gov't to spent massive $$$ on their behalf - why should the gov't do so? And at no cost to them (as I assume that you are suggesting by your above statement)?

I mean - just because they are big and rich - (totally disreguard the fact that they also are the heaviest user of that public infrastructure - oh no, that couldn't be the reason - the only real reason is that "people just hate Wal-Mart because it's a big and profitable corporation") - why should they be forced to pay a dime? Let the "little people" pay all of the costs of the big corporations, after all, that will help them to become even bigger and more profitable, right? And while those private citizen's taxes go up, and they become poorer because of it, investors/stockholders like yourself, become richer - at their expense! No, that's not socialism... forced wealth-redistribution... not at all... I mean, why should the "customers" of infrastructure, be forced to pay any true portion of their costs, as in a free-market, capitalist model? Subsidies by third-parties, extracted at the threat of violence, that's the means to greater profits!!!

 

[amol]

^ massive PWNAGE

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryAnd you fail to realize, that my diatribe was in relation to the street in question not being a public through-way. If it in fact is, then it obviously does benefit more than just a singular entity. But in the context of a situation in which it did not, then I would compare it directly to private welfare. How is it really any different - in that specific hypothetical context in which I was making that argument - whether that singular recipient were a large rich and power corporate, or a private individual citizen? I don't think that you ever actually answered that question, btw.

Brilliant, Dr. Watson. Now, given the assumption that is what was happening in this scenario, how can you fault me for ranting against such a thing? Btw, politicos don't often actually ever end up in federal prison, they just step down, don't get re-elected, or get shuffled-off into some other less-visible office position. Look at the mess that is the Big Dig here.

Ok, lets summarize your argument so far. You were very wrong, you made baseless and unsubstantiated ASSumptions. I point this out. You then went off on some rant about building roads on private property which I pointed out was illegal and couldn't occur anyway without a LOT of people going to jail. You then apparently claim that your whole argument had been if the hypothetical situation that didn't occur and would have been illegal had occured was what you were ranting about and that in reality that makes your argument make perfect sense. :roll:

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryI mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but why would undeveloped properties, require roadway improvements, in the form of expansion? That's a rather bizarre straw-man to bring up. If indeed there were private citizens also being served by that roadway, then it would be a totally different question, wouldn't it?

Allow me to quote myself because you apparently can't read:

Originally posted by: RahvinWhat you don't realize is that property access in this country is often a constitutionaly (state level) protected right. There is are designated permanent easements in every county, township and parish in this country set aside for property access. The local authority has the right and the obligation to build and maintain reasonable access to that property. If the property owner develops or divides his property he is obligated to provide access to sub-divided parcels and the local authority may require him to build the roads that will provide the access and turn them over to the authority. Once the road IS public property is MUST be maintained. To propose that because Walmart is big they should pay for the road in front of their Headquarters is absurd, illegal and patently socialist.

I bolded the most important sentence but I enourage you to actually read the whole thing this time and ponder it. I also throw this out for your consideration. If government considers the occupants and users of the properties when making decisions about what roadway improvements are necessary rather than the design criteria dictated by the FHWA and the State DOT then it's a violation of Title IX.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryBrilliant, Dr. Watson. Now, given the assumption that is what was happening in this scenario, how can you fault me for ranting against such a thing?

Only a complete and utter fvcktard would make that assumption in the first place. To assume that hundereds of public officials would willingly break the law in a manner that could place them all in jail is just assine. Your assertian that this would only be politicians is one of the many reasons you are so bloody ignorant about what you are talking about.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryAnd there is already a roadway there, correct? So why would it need to be expanded, if the other property is undeveloped? If there were multiple "residents", along that street, then I wouldn't have any issue with the actual existance of the street, since it would in fact be a public street. I suppose that I should hold you to the same standards that you held me to - are there any actual undeveloped lots abutting that street?

Government cannot consider the usage of the properties in question outside that required for design or they run the risk of law suits and Title IX claims. As I have already told you, it's immaterial why the traffic is there.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryWhy does it have little bearing? It's an example in which infrastructure costs, are not distributed globally over the gov'ts tax-base jurisdiction, but directly assessed to those members of society that benefit most from that infrastructure in proportion. IOW, if that same basic rule-of-thumb was upheld in the case of Wal-Mart's street, then they should have to pay the majority of the roadway expansion costs. There's currently a debate going on in MA, about whether or not residents in the western part of the state, which is sparsely populated, should pay equal or proportial fees to the Turnpike Authority, as compared to those in the densely-populated eastern part of the state. (IOW, the "hicks" in western MA don't want to be forced to subsidize the Big Dig's cost overruns, themselves largely the result of extreme political graft.)

What do you think that the east-vs-west turnpike fee dispute in this state is exactly about? (Admittedly, the turnpike is a "limited-access" highway, I'm not certain that it's not entirely public, but it's not free either. It's not exactly like your neighborhood streets, but it forms an excellent example for discussion, especially since it's very difficult to leave Boston, without being on the pike briefly, and paying a toll just to leave the city.)

I'm not even going to bother responding to this, you have altered what you are saying about four times (and continue to refuse to answer any of the questions I posed) and the issue is incredibly complex and frankly you are too stupid for me to enjoy typing out what would be necessary.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryLarge commercial buildings, which would cause a noticable increase in traffic loads on the streets, are often assessed an additional fee for the necessary roadway development work, as mugs pointed out.

This issue as well is far too advanced for you, you completely ignored all my counterpoints to it and you don't do well borrowing other peoples arguements and trying to use them when you don't even understand them.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryHuh? You're the one that claimed that it wasn't welfare unless it was in the form of cash explicitly, I was simply disagreeing with that viewpoint.

Yes and your retort to that is to say that too completely uncomparable items (roadway construction and foodstamps) are the same thing. :roll:

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryActually illegal, huh? You might want to tell that to the local gov't agencies, the ones that assess the additional roadway development fees, for additional roadway infrastructural enhancement work, that was only necessary due to the existance of those certain parties.

There you go making baseless and unsubstantiated claims again. Ok lets play,

What government agency?
What Development fees?
What roadway enhancement?
What parties?

Times, dates, places parties involved, be sure to include county/township, city and state.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryOh really? Now I'm going to have to go around to all of the local corporate office parks and take some pics; ... because there are in fact plenty of them around here.

Make sure your pictures include the counties plat maps (or property assement maps). Be aware that as a someone with 9 years of transportation design experience I will be able to spot fakes and verify authenticity.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryWell, I suppose I would have to look at some property/lot diagrams and maps to be certain. But when there's a major corporation, and they want their address to be such-and-such street, basically a "vanity street name", I would be surprised to find other private citizens sharing a neighboring street address. (For example, are there any "Joe Public, 357 Microsoft Way, Redmond WA" addresses, for private persons? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it would strike me as highly unusual.)

It may also supprise you to know that in most jurisditions the developer that builds the street gets to name it.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryAgain, what in the H- are you going on about? A simple metric of the increased traffic, and increased load/wear on the road, should be sufficient for the town engineers. I don't see how in the world that is "punishing" success - I guess you don't feel that successful corporations should pay taxes, either, right? Or that you see taxes assessed, as a "punishment", right? There is a reason, that tractor-trailer trucks pay higher taxes, because they cause more wear-and-tear on the roads, and their use of such is for commerce, and not just private transportation. What I am trying to point out is that is not some form of "discrimination", but an attempt to more fairly assess the costs, apportioned proportionally to use, of the public infrastructure. It's really that simple.

So if you buy new tires or a new vehicle the local authority can hit you with an assesment for doing more damage to the roadway?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryFunny, because my model, in which the infrastructural requirements/costs, to society, are apportioned in cost to the users of that infrastructure, proportionally, which much more resembles a free-market model, than yours, in which some are forced to subsidize the costs of others - that is socialism, especially when it is enforced by the gov't using force.

You don't have a model, I've asked you repeatedly to explain it and you have ignored every request so don't tell me you have a fvcking model. Current construction funds are obtained from per-user fees, there is no fairer model that doesn't involve HUGE invasions of your civil liberties.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarrySo explain again how it is "unfair", to ask Wal-Mart to pay their "fair share" of costs in terms of paying for their "public"-provided infrastructure? Or how forcing others to subsidize those costs, is not socialism at its finest.

I will explain it to you right after you explain to me how Walmart the corporation is damaging the roadway. Do they load up their building on semi-trucks and drive it up and down the street during lunch hour? Or are you saying Walmart is responsible to pay taxes above and beyond what their employees and themselves already pay in per-user fees assesed at the gas pump?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryInfrastructural costs, should be considered a normal cost of doing business, IMHO, and should be planned for, in accordance with their projected growth. I mean, should the electric power (another infrastructural service), for Wal-Mart, be subsidized by all of the private individuals living in the area as well?

So Walmart is responsible for infastructure they don't own, don't control and have no say in the operation of?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryHow so? Corporations are created "to serve the public good", and given certain legal rights, rights that individual citizens don't have - in exchange, the gov't taxes their existance. In a way, corporations are "legal slaves", with the corporation's owners, and the public, by way of having legal power and jurisdiction over the corporate charter being the "slave-owners". The additional priviledges granted by gov't, include the ability to, in the case where the "slave" breaks the law, to insulate the "slave-owner" from charges stemming from those legal infractions, except in extreme cases as decided by a court of law. But legally, they exist as a seperate entity, and that entity is likewise taxed.

I told you before that I would not be your economics teacher. I gave you the key word you would need to google and learn, why don't you start instead of rambling off and talking about something you don't have a clue about.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryIf Amused and yourself got your wishes, and corporations were excepted from taxation, and yet, were able to avail themselves the benefits of the public purse's dispursion, then they indeed would be "stealing" from me - no different than a private welfare recipient, in fact. If you honestly can't see that, then I'm sorry.

How do they "avail themselves the benefits of the public purse'? Explain this instead of ranting.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryNo, actually that's entirely your projection. I have made numerous comparisons, again and again, in this thread, of how corporate welfare is really no different than private welfare. The fact that you continue to make those false claims about me, shows how blind you are, because you obviously haven't actually read anything that I've said, and instead just spew pro-corporate dogma. By stereotyping the critics that you claim to oppose, in a manner in which they have not conducted themselves - you paint your own train of discussion in a very poor, even flickering, light.

And all your posts have been competely ignorant of even basic economic theory. Come back and play when you know what you are talking about and can make comparisons that don't make you look like a bloody fool.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I don't believe that is legal, but then again, I've never argued in this thread, that Wal-Mart's corporate HQ should be walled off, and not allowed any roadway access to the outside world. If that's what you are implying, then now you're just getting silly.

Contradict yourself much? Well silly me of course you do.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryAnd they have the legal right to assess the appropriate fees, in order to do so. For example, an "abandoned" property, that you own - if you do not maintain it to "community standards" (let weeds grow 3' high, for example) - the town can send one of their employees to your property to mow it - and then they can send you a bill for it!

So I talk about maintaining access to property and you spout off about weeds? :roll: I would ask if you could diverge anymore but that would be a rather stupid question.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryBut if Wal-Mart claims that they need the road enlarged, just for them? They should be asked to (at least partially) fund the expansion roadwork. The gov't job is to provide basic infrastructure services. If some entity wants the "super deluxe" version, they should be forced to pay to "biggie size it", to use a popular phrase.

Fortunately our system is not set up to be as discriminatory as you would like it.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryIOW, just because Wal-Mart "lives" there, and they snap their fingers and ask the local gov't to spent massive $$$ on their behalf - why should the gov't do so? And at no cost to them (as I assume that you are suggesting by your above statement)?

The poltical reason would be that Betonville would probably not like to lose that headquarters as it would be it bringing in 10's of millions of dollars in salary to the area which is a huge engine for economic growth. The relocation of 10-20,000 employees would absolutely devistate a community with the loss of every Walmart job costing the city 3 additional jobs in the service sector it's quite easy to see that the effect would devistate the community, destroy property values and in general ruin everyones life who lives in the area. As such it sould be properly prioritized to ensure those jobs stay in the community. But don't quote or reply to this becaues you will probably compare sheep shearing to auto production or some other assinine comparison and use some more baseless and made up numbers and assumptions to try to "prove your point" then later claim it was all hypothetical.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryI mean - just because they are big and rich - (totally disreguard the fact that they also are the heaviest user of that public infrastructure - oh no, that couldn't be the reason - the only real reason is that "people just hate Wal-Mart because it's a big and profitable corporation") - why should they be forced to pay a dime? Let the "little people" pay all of the costs of the big corporations, after all, that will help them to become even bigger and more profitable, right? And while those private citizen's taxes go up, and they become poorer because of it, investors/stockholders like yourself, become richer - at their expense! No, that's not socialism... forced wealth-redistribution... not at all... I mean, why should the "customers" of infrastructure, be forced to pay any true portion of their costs, as in a free-market, capitalist model? Subsidies by third-parties, extracted at the threat of violence, that's the means to greater profits!!!

As I pointed out earlier, most jurisdictions pay for roadway construction using per-user fees, and right after you show me how walmart (the corporation) is using the roadway and avoiding those per-user fees you might have a leg to stand on.