Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
|
I knew some of the people involved in the development plans, it was all to make the place pretty and nice for pfizer because with the anticipated influx of well payed employees and no place to live nearby that was suitable to them, knockng down the shitty ghetto and building an upscale yuppie ghetto seemed like a good plan. It was semi-successful in that New London was elevated a bit and got some more culture, and the town was in a downward spiral before so the improvements ended up 'revitalizing' the town.
The other aspect about the case before it went to trial was that the guy who was holding out refused their initial offer of far more than the property was worth because he was the last hold out and he thought he could squeeze even more out of the development corp. His motives were greed, OK, but he made a gamble and then lost. He went on to fight it and played the "My poor old home means so much to me..." card to gain sympathy for his cause.
In a real way, if you want to lay the blame for the effects of the SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain, it could go directly on the shoulders of the guy who was a holdout. Had he not made such a fuss it wouldn't have gone to the supreme court and perhaps (for better or worse) pfizer may not have chosen to leave. I'd be willing to bet the bad press, bad blood, and general hassle contributed to their decision to "fuck this place, they are pains in the ass." Had pfizer stayed in the town its residents undoubtedly would have savored the crumbs that fell from the mouth of the company's $48 billion annual revenue (at the time)
Frankkly the guy was being a greedy douche ad only thinking of himself. The development corporation actually did have the improvement of the town in mind.
As I said, I know people involved and neighborhood and town rejuvenation is a consistent theme.
I think it is possible to be a good business person and have consideration for other people. Unless you have an MBA.