- joshua bigley
- Boynton Beach, FL
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Should 'Eminent Domain' be used for sustainable growth and living; or Industry, status Q, gentrification, not-in-my-backyard dirty industry?
If Eminent Domain is designed to takeover private land for the use of public good and the King often implements his domain for industry, almost always in underclass neighborhoods without a voice, than shouldn't Eminent Domain be public domain--area sequestered for community projects such as urban gardens for local sustainability and organic produce? At a time when everyone's TED talking sustainability and in a time of Depression, the King destroyed a 14-acre community urban garden in LA, in 2006, a garden that sustained the community since 1994. The King took the land for commercial development. Underprivileged areas often have no food source except corner liqueur stores and fast food. Isn't a community garden the public domain, eminent domain, the good of the public? Should Eminent Domain be re-titled the King's Domain or Elite-Domain?
Is sustainability just talk? What are we doing about it? is commercial development for the wealthy more important than interconnected healthy thriving empowered communities that work in conjunction with nature? Are the poor citizens? or just fodder? Do the wealthy industrialists have more rights than average people? Do you want local produce or box-store GM-manipulated artificial additives in your diet? Would you rather drive an SUV to Box-Mart or walk two blocks to organic greens?
See 'The Garden' A documentary recently released exploring the dynamics of this 14-acre sanctuary.