Viewed from afar, a city's decisions on public works projects like this seems relatively easy: decide what offers the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens, and be willing to sacrifice the needs and wishes of a minority in order to achieve that. In other words, it's entirely ethical for a city to condemn private property of a few people if, for example, it then helps create a park or hospital or some other project that's very much in the interest of many people.
In this particular Minneapolis example, some homeowners along the intended LRT route will lose some of their privacy, as well as some of the access to natural resources, that they have enjoyed up to now. But this cost will also provide greater access to downtown businesses and resources for quite a large number of people, as well as improve the tax base of Minneapolis proper, since it will help those local businesses flourish.
For obvious reasons, cities normally seize property that falls in questionable neighborhoods, or neighborhoods inhabited by disenfranchised citizens who are less likely to voice opposition. Pretty hard to put a freeway through a neighborhood of wealthy, politically connected folks, for example, no matter how many people benefit
In our current example, a number of quite affluent and influential homeowners along one of the nicer stretches of the intended route are now agitating to prevent construction of the LRT line. It's easy enough to say that these wealthy homeowners along Cedar Lake in the MInneapolis Kenwood neighborhood are behaving selfishly, in their own best interests rather than the interest of the greater good as they attempt to block construction of a public utility that would clearly benefit many people. It's only about two dozen homes that are really affected by having their backyard viewlines changed. Those homes, however, belong to folks with a hefty amount of clout.
|Originally a double-wide freight train pathway, half of the rail bed became|
a very pleasant bike path more than 20 years ago Now, efforts to reclaim the rail
bed for a commuter light-rail line have local residents outraged.
It's also true that an LRT line would primarily benefit suburbanites seeking access to the downtown districts, and would not be of huge benefits to us in the city. Years ago, a major freeway was cut through the heart of Minneapolis, aimed specifically at delivering office workers into downtown from the suburbs. 40 years later, large chunks of once fine neighborhoods along Park Avenue still have not recovered from the devastation. Is our city really obliged to chop up more of our real estate just to make it easier for prissy suburbanites to get to their jobs?
...on the other hand, those very commuters from the despised wealthy suburbs are what make it possible for Minneapolis to support major league sports team, world class theater and museums, etc. etc. Easy access to downtown for the suburbanites means that I can hop over to the ballpark or the Guthrie Theater after work with ease.
|By 2020, there could be a big wad of brown|
noise over my home to the west of Minneapolis
airport. Unless the revolution comes first.
It's not an easy issue to resolve. We are all at heart somewhat selfish creatures, and setting that self-interest aside to support the greater public good is difficult indeed. My current derision at the selfishness of Kenwood residents seems logical only because I don't happen to live there and only occasionally use the bike and nature trails located there. I'd no doubt feel much different if I lived 30 blocks closer.
Just keep that flight path away from my sky.