Tuesday, January 31, 2006

"Sentimental" Value or $$$

I was reading this article about some land that belonged to Glen H. Curtiss, also known as "the fastest man on earth," because of the land speed record that he set and also because of his aircraft innovations that helped fight two world wars. There is a big feud about his historical land because there are many people who want to make money off of it by making a waterfront park or building condominiums so that the wealthy locals won't move away from their town. The man who wants to start the building projects, Michael Doyle, says that he views the new project as "a vital ingredient in shoring up the village's tax base and keeping wealthy locals from moving to lake or mountain resorts elsewhere in the Finger Lakes wine country and beyond." Many are very upset by these proposals because the land is "sentimental" to certain people in the town. Many of these "Curtiss devotees" want to actually spend money to make a memorial park for the historical land. Even Doyle, the man behind the building ideas, says that a memorial park would be nice; however, the money is not available. It is easy to see both sides of this issue, but the fact it that there is a potential for their town to make millions of dollars off of this land. Is the historical value of the land worth more than the actual money that they could potentially make? Just as Doyle states, "You can disagree or agree with condos on the lakefront, but the fact is there's economics involved. Nobody's going to be able to afford to stay living here."

1 comment:

Greg Delemeester said...

A related issue to the question of "best use of land" concerns the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. New London (see story). Generally, the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution protects against the taking of private property unless it is for a "public" purpose and the owners are fairly compensated. In Kelo, the Court allowed a local development group to seize the home of a woman under the theory that the development of her property (as factory space) would generate increased tax dollars for the city. This decision has roundly been criticized by folks from both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

If the residents of Hammondsport (Curtiss' hometown) value the bucolic setting of their town, then it's up to them to prevent developers from coming in by buying up the available land and setting it aside for a park. I just don't think developers should use the power of eminent domain to rig the system in their favor.