You need to read this just to witness the Lipscomb officials say how it will benefit the neighborhoods. I haven't seen such a strain in rationalization from a religious university since Belmont University started asking for easement of zoning restrictions, which would allow them to appropriate
Belmont University has never asked for nor is able to get the power to "appropriate neighbor's property."
ReplyDeleteThat is a fundamental misreading of the "institutional overlay" process. An institutional overlay merely is a public document that lays out the institution's hoped-for expansion/development plans over the next X number of years. It does not confer any power on the institution to take property, or to force the owner to sell. It does not even give the institution the first right of purchase if the proprety owner decides to sell.
An institutional overlay in fact empowers the property owners to make MORE money if they sell than they otherwise would, if they chose to sell, because they can force the institution, as a desperate buyer, into a bidding war.
This bill is heavy on pork like all bills that come out of Washington. In fairness to the President though. It is not really his energy bill. It might be Speaker Hastert, and Congressman Delay's energy bill more than it is his. This is most definetly not a perfect bill, but any kind of energy bill is a good start.
ReplyDeleteHere is my response to Bill's defense of Belmont.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, here's how Mr. Roget defines "to appropriate":
ReplyDeleteVERB: 1. To set aside or apart for a specified purpose: allocate, assign, designate, earmark. See COLLECT , MONEY . 2. To lay claim to for oneself or as one's right.
My description of Belmont's attempt to appropriate neighbors' property by easing the zoning seems "appropriate" in both senses of the verb.
Now to Glen:
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, Glen, Republicans claim to be more fiscally conservative than Dems. So, not only do we get pork with both parties, but the self-proclaimed "conservative" party is hypocritical. They have absolutely no room to lecture Dems about out-of-control spending habits. When it comes to spending, the only difference between the parties is which pet programs are going to get the money and which are not.
But that's getting away from my point about David Lipscomb's garage. I simply wanted to underscore the ridiculous lengths to which Lipscomb administrators go to convince us of what a benefit the garage will be for the neighborhoods.
Oh, and the rest of us owe such a deep depth of gratitude to Lipscomb for sponsoring Special Olympics and other on-campus events, which they probably get paid for anyway! Believe me, universities make a big ole chunk of change off of groups that use their facilities during the summer months, so hosting those groups is more favorable for Lipscomb than for society at large. For them to tell us they're doing us all a favor is patently absurd.
And as if the only way Lipscomb can make its students stop parking in neighborhoods is to get Congress to bankroll a new parking garage! Golly bum! Do those administrators think us idiots?
I agree. As a fiscal conservative, I am very disappointed with the Republicans in the House. I knew that Bush was not a "real conservative", but I always thought that if we won the House, spending would decrease. I was wrong. It is a rare thing (me being wrong) but it happens. :)
ReplyDelete