SOCIAL MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP •ARE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK THE NEW PUBLIC SQUARE?

TAXPAYERS MAY PICK UP THE TAB FOR FARMWORKERS OVERTIME.

AND EMINENT DOMAIN AND SHOPPINGTOWN MALL.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED ON THE PANEL TONIGHT BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY AND CHAD SPARBER FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

A CASE ABOUT FREE SPEECH LIKELY HEADING TO THE SUPREME COURT COULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.

LAWS IN TEXAS AND FLORIDA BAR COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK AND TWITTER FROM REMOVING CONTENT BASED ON IDEOLOGY.

CONSERVATIVES ARGUE THE PLATFORMS' CONTENT MODERATION POLICIES ARE CENSORING THEIR SPEECH.

THEY SAY SOCIAL MEDIA IS THE NEW PUBLIC SQUARE SO ALL POLITICAL SPEECH SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

APPEALS COURTS HAVE COME TO DIFFERENT RULINGS ABOUT THE TWO LAWS.

ARE THESE PLATFORMS COMMON CARRIERS-- SIMPLY PIPES FOR TRANSMITTING INFORMATION-WITHOUT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

OR DO THEY STILL HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

>> WELL, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY STILL HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THESE VARIOUS COMPANIES.

THE COMPANIES, WHILE THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS ON THESE PLATFORMS, STILL, THE COMPANIES DO THE HIRING AND FIRING, ET CETERA.

I WOULD ARGUE THE COMPANIES STILL HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MODERATE WHAT IS ON THERE.

ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INFORMATION ON THERE IS INACCURATE OR SOCIALLY CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE.

>> YEAH, I THINK I WOULD SAY ALMOST THE OPPOSITE AND THAT THEY ARE NOT PUBLISHERS OF INFORMATION IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

AND THEY'RE ALSO NOT SPEAKERS.

THEY'RE PROVIDING A PLATFORM, SORT OF FUNCTIONING AS A HIGHWAY, IF YOU WILL, A PIPELINE, IF YOU THINK THE WAY DAVE HAD CHARACTERIZED IT.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ALSO FUNCTION AS A SORT OF MIC AND AMPLIFY THE VOICES THAT ARE ON THERE.

AND MY OWN SENSE IS THAT THEY HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO NOT SPREAD MISTRUTHS.

I THINK THE PROBLEM WE ARE FACING WITH THIS AND OTHER ISSUES IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE CLEAR STANDARDS AS TO WHAT THE TRUTH IS IN A WORLD WHERE ALTERNATIVE FACTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE OKAY AND ACCEPTABLE.

AND THEN ALSO WE ARE NOT AT A PLACE WHERE I THINK WE CAN TRUST THE PUBLIC OR CERTAINLY WE DON'T TRUST THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SORT FACT FROM FICTION.

>> SO IF THEY'RE PRIVATE COMPANIES, THOUGH, I MEAN THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO-- THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T ABRIDGE FREE SPEECH.

SO LUKE, WHERE DO YOU COME DOWN?

IS THIS REALLY A PUBLIC SQUARE FUNCTION HERE?

>> NO, I DON'T FINAL THAT ARGUMENT CONVINCING.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS BUT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AREN'T AND THEY'RE DOING JUST FINE.

SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ARE NOT LIKE TELEPHONE COMPANIES WHERE EVERYBODY HAS A TELEPHONE AND YOU CAN ARGUE RELY ON A TELEPHONE.

THEY'RE CREATING A CURATED REALITY THAT IS QUASI DIGITAL PUBLIC SQUARE BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A PUBLIC PARK OR OTHER PUBLIC DOMAINS, AS I SEE IT.

I THINK THEY'RE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS THAT DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.

IF I WERE A JEWISH BUSINESS OWNER AND THERE WERE ANTI-SEMITIC PEOPLE SAYING ANTI-SEMITIC THINGS IN MY BUSINESS, I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM IN I WANT TO.

>> I WANT TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON YOUR OPENING QUESTION ABOUT WHAT CONSERVATIVES WANTS HERE.

I DON'T THINK WE ARE UNIFORM ON THAT.

THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE CENTER RIGHT CAME DOWN CONDEMNING THE TEXAS DECISION SAYING IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE LONG STANDING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS SINCE 1974 MEDIA COMPANIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE EDITORIAL CONTROL OVER THEIR CONTENT AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY SOCIAL MEDIA IS A LOT LIKE MODERN DAY MEDIA COMPANIES.

SO ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES?

I THINK ONE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS LIKE A TELEPHONE IN THAT IT HAS NETWORK EXPERSONNALITIES WHICH MEANS THAT MY VALUE OF THIS PRODUCT INCREASES WITH THE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALSO USING IT, RIGHT?

A TELEPHONE ISN'T USEFUL IF I'M THE ONLY ONE ON IT.

THAT KIND OF COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT GIVES RISE TO MONOPOLY-LIKE CONDITIONS AND MONOPOLIES CERTAINLY ARE DESERVING OF MORE REGULATION THAN A COMPLETELY COMPETITIVE MARKET WOULD BE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RATIONALE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE USING WHEN MAKING ITS DECISIONS BUT IT KIND OF SPEAKS TO THE COMPLICATIONS I THINK THAT ARE INVOLVED HERE.

I THINK I MIGHT AGREE WITH THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE.

BUT THE IDEA THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

>> I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996, WHICHY SENTLY SHIELDS THE MEDIA-- WHICH ESSENTIALLY SHIELDS THE MEDIA PLATFORMS FROM LIABILITY AND AS THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SAID, THIS IS AN INDICATION OF CONGRESS' INTENT TO TREAT THEM AS MERELY PLATFORMS.

I'LL GO BACK TO AN EARLIER POINT, WHICH IS ADDING ANOTHER DIMENSION TO IT, WHICH IS THAT DO WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE SOMEONE SORT OF DECIDING WHAT IS TRUTH, WHAT ISN'T TRUTH, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS FOR MAKING THAT DECISION?

AND SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO FOLKS IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

>> WELL, IF THERE ARE NO CONTENT MODERATION POLICIES, IF THESE LAWS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE?

WOULD IT JUST BECOME UNUSABLE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE SUCH CONSTANT AND DIVISIVE AND OUT THERE INFORMATION PUMPED OUT, POSTED ALL THE TIME?

>> HARD FOR ME TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THAT YOU ARE CHARACTERIZING.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEWSPAPER AND SOCIAL MEDIA SITE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN WHAT'S TO PREVENT NEWSPAPERS FROM PRINTING INFORMATION THAT IS OUTLAND ISSUE?

THEY CAN CREATE THEIR OWN CONTENT.

OR CURATE THEIR OWN CONTENT.

>> THEY HAVE EDITORIAL CONTROL AND YOU ARE SAYING THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, TO USE MARK ZUCKERBERG'S FAVORITE WORDS SHOULD HAVE EDITORIAL CONTROL SO THEREFORE YOU ARE SAYING THEY'RE PUBLISHERS BUT NINA BRINGS UP THE COMMUNICATION DECENCY ACT SECTION 230 WHICH GIVES THEM LIABILITY PROTECTION THAT ARE POSTED.

KIND OF LIKE THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO A LITTLE BIT.

>> BACK FROM THE 1930S AND 40S, THAT WAS PASSED IN 1996 AFTER AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET.

MINDFUL OF WHAT WAS EXPECTED TO BE A GROWING TREND.

>> SO WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF CORPORATE SPEECH?

CONSERVATIVES GENERALLY ARE LIKE CORPORATE SPEECH, RIGHT?

THEY HAVE CORPORATE SPEECH RIGHTS, CITIZENS UNITED AND THIS SEEMS TO BE PUSHING THE OTHER DIRECTION, LUKE.

>> I STILL CAN'T GET MY HEAD AROUND THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC SQUARE.

IT'S NOT.

IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY WHERE PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THAT SERVICE NEED TO AGREE TO A BURCH OF TERMS AND-- A BUNCH OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

IT'S NOT A PUBLIC SQUARE AND THAT RATIONALE DOES NOT APPLY.

>> YOU SAID MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE NOT ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT CERTAINLY THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION THESE DAYS SEEMS TO BE RIGHT THERE.

THIS IS WHERE EVERYBODY-- OF COURSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS TWEETING PUSHED IT IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE WHERE ALL THE DISCUSSION IS TAKING PLACE THESE DAYS.

>> NOT THE GOOD DISCUSSION.

[LAUGHTER] I'M NOT ON IT AND I DON'T MISS A THING.

>> ARE THE GOOD DISCUSSIONS NECESSARILY TAKING PLACE THROUGH TRADITIONAL NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS?

I WOULD ARGUE NO EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THE INTERNET.

YOU HAVE THE MAN IN THE BAIMENTD WHO COULD GO ON AND-- YOU HAVE THE MAN IN THE BASEMENT WHO COULD GO ON AND OFFER HIS OPINIONS.

IT IS MUCH MORE OF AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION INCLUDING THE BAD INPUT >> A STATE BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED FARMWORKERS IN NEW YORK GET OVERTIME PAY FOR ANYTHING OVER A 40-HOUR WEEK.

THAT'S DOWN FROM THE CURRENT 60-HOUR THRESHOLD.

TO MAKE THE REQUIREMENT MORE PALATABLE TO FARMERS, THE STATE-THAT IS, THE TAXPAYERS-- WILL PICK UP THAT EXTRA OVERTIME PAY.

SHOULD FARMS BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME OVERTIME RULES AS OTHER BUSINESSES, AND IF THEY ARE, SHOULD THE TAXPAYER BE PICKING UP THE TAB?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY THEIR ECONOMICS TRUMP WORKERS RIGHTS.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY HAS THEIR WORK CONCENTRATED IN ONE SEASON THAT THEY SHOULD LEGALLY BE PAID LESS.

SO I ALSO THINK THAT'S PROBLEMATIC WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT FROM THE FARM WAGE BOARD AND TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THIS WAS ROOTED IN THE JIM CROW SOUTH AND HOW IN THE PRESENT DAY IT HITS LATINX PEOPLE THE HARDEST.

MOST OF WHOM DO NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH COLLEGE.

SO I DO THINK IT'S TIME FOR THIS TO CHANGE.

WE HAVE SEEN IT DONE IN OTHER STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON SO I THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

>> YOU ARE NOT BUYING THE ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE OF THE PERISHABLE NATURE OF THE HARVEST, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THERE IS, HAVE YOU TO SHOE HORN THE WORKERS INTO THAT SCHEDULE AND IT'S NOT JUST HERE IS A 40 HOUR WEEK AND IT'S SIMPLE?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE TIMING OF THAT.

JUST PAY THEM WHAT THEY DESERVE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

>> BUT THAT WOULD BE ALL THE MORE REASON TO ENSURE THAT THESE WORKERS ARE NOT TREATED LIKE MACHINES THAT ARE FORCED TO DHURN OUT ALL OF THIS WORK IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO THIS WITH LATINXERS THAT THERE IS A REAL DANGER HERE, ALSO OF THE GUEST FARM WORKERS COMING IN AND BEING TREATED LESSER THAN.

THE ONLY DRAWBACK THAT CAN I SEE HERE IS IN TERMS OF HOW THIS BILL AND THE SUBSIDIES ARE SET UP SUCH THAT FARMERS WOULD ONLY BE REIMBURSED TWICE A YEAR.

AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT THE OUTLAYS OUT ON THEIR OWN AND THEN THE OTHER IS THAT THE SUBSIDIES COULD BE ROLLED BACK BY A FUTURE STATE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE THE SUBSIDIES AND THE REQUIREMENT ARE FROM DIFFERENT WHRGHTIVE-- DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE TRACKS.

THAT DOES CONCERN ME.

>> SHOULD THERE BE SUBSIDIES AT ALL?

WHY SHOULD THE TAX STATE TAXPAYER PICK UP THE TAB.

>> THE THOUGHT IS THAT THESE ARE SMALL FARMS, NOT BIG FARMING CORPORATIONS AND IS A RECOGNITION THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SMALL FARMERS AND IT'S ALSO A WAY OF RECOGNIZING THAT IN A SENSE, THE PUBLIC BENEFITS FROM THESE WORKERS SO IT IS SORT OF SHARING THE PAIN SO TO SPEAK.

THE PROBLEM IS, FOR ME, IS THAT I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT-- AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING THE WORKERS SHOULD BE PAID FAIRLY.

THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT.

BUT THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT AT A TIME WHEN THE COST OF ALL FOODS ARE GOING UP, FOR THE TAXPAYERS TO HAVE TO BEAR THIS BURDEN AND TO PAY MORE FOR THE FOOD, TAXPAYERS, AS YOU POINT OUT IN A NEW LEGISLATURE, MAY PUSH BACK ON THIS AND SAY ROLL THE SUBSIDIES BACK.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY ON BOTH ENDS.

SO I THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE.

>> YOU KNOW, I'M CONFLICTED ON THIS ISSUE.

THE CONTEXT OF IT HAS ME SCRATCHING MY HEAD.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS LEGISLATION THAT HAS ITS ROOTS IN SOMETHING THAT WAS PROPOSED BY SOMEBODY FROM QUEENS.

IT HAS AN AIR OF DOWNSTATE TELLING UPSTATE WHAT TO DO.

BUT EVEN MORE INTERESTING IS IT'S HARD FOR FARMS TO HIRE LABOR.

I MEAN THE USDA REPORTS THAT HALF OF ALL FARM WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS.

WE HAVE AN H2A PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS IMMIGRANTS TO COME IN LEGAL LEGALLY FOR SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORK.

THE VISAS ARE SLOW TO BE PROCESSED AND DON'T DO ANYTHING FOR NON-SEASONAL WORK LIKE DAIRY FARMS WHICH WE HAVE A LOT OF.

THE CYNIC IN ME WANTS TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE I COMMIT TO SOMETHING ON THIS.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE STORY IS ABOUT A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN OVERTIME PAY FOR FARM WORKERS.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IT'S ABOUT, THE H2A WORKERS?

>> WHAT IS THE CONSPIRACY, CHAD?

>> ARE THEY TRYING TO, SOMETHING THAT IS SO FAR REMOVED FROM THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCY, MAYBE IT'S THEIR OWN IMMIGRANT BASE.

I DON'T KNOW.

WHY ARE FARM WORKERS AGAINST THIS DESPITE THE GENEROUS SUBSIDIES?

MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO INVITE MORE SCRUTINY INTO THEIR HIRING PRACTICES.

>> YOU MEAN THE FARMERS.

>> THE FARMERS.

THAT'S NOT A JUDGMENT AGAINST ANY OF THE PRACTICES.

I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> WILL THIS HELP THE LABOR SHORTAGE IF THE PAY IS BETTER?

I MEAN IT'S A HARD JOB.

>> IT'S HARD TO HIRE FARMERS.

YOU KNOW WHAT HELPS?

PAYING THEM OVERTIME LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO.

>> WE HAVE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

AND THE EVIDENCE FROM CALIFORNIA THAT CALIFORNIA LAW, LIKE NOBODY IS REALLY STUDYING IT.

I HAVE READ SOME POLICY PIECES ON IT BUT THEY'RE NOT LINKED TO HARD CORE ECONOMIC DATA THAT WE CAN THEN AND EVALUATE.

>> FAIR I-- IT'S FAIRLY NEW.

>> AND ON SUCH A SMALL SCALE.

I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT IS GOING TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THE STATE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET.

BESIDE WHICH WE WASTE MONEY ON A LOT OF OTHER THINGS AND TO THE QUESTION OF WHY DOWNSTATE?

BECAUSE NEW YORK RANKS HIGHEST IN TERMS OF DAIRY PRODUCT PRODUCTION.

SO IT'S A BIG DEAL FOR THE STATE AS A WHOLE ALTHOUGH DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS UPSTATE.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

>> NEW YORK IS A FAIRLY LARGE AGRICULTURAL STATE AND WE SEE IT AROUND HERE IN CENTRAL NEW YORK, BUT DOWNSTATE MAY NOT APPRECIATE THAT AND PEOPLE IN GENERAL MAY NOT REALIZE THE SIZE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK.

>> IT'S ALSO WORTH POINTING OUT THAT WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES THAT ARE PROMOTED AND DEVELOPED IN THE INTEREST OF GENERAL WELFARE.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY A WELFARE PROGRAM.

WHILE IT SEEMS TO BE STRIKING TO BE SUBSIDIZED, IT'S REALLY NOT NEW.

>> TARA, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD?

>> NO.

>> A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP WANTS ONONDAGA COUNTY TO USE ITS POWERS OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO SEIZE THE FORMER MACY'S AND SEARS STORES IN SHOPPING TOWN MALL.

THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO TURN THE MALL INTO A RESIDENTIAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND COMMERCIAL CENTER, AND IT OWNS EVERYTHING -EXCEPT- THOSE TWO SITES.

THE STATE TAKING PROPERTY IS NEVER POPULAR, BUT IT CAN DO SO FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SHOULD IT?

>> YEAH, IF I WAS CYNICAL IN THE LAST SEGMENT, I'M MORE SO ON THIS ONE.

>> LET IT FLY HERE, CHAD.

>> OKAY.

SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT I DON'T LIKE EMINENT DOMAIN VERY MUCH.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD USE THIS JUDICIOUSLY BUT THE TIMELINES OF ACTION THAT EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS, IT DOESN'T LEAVE ME FEELING WARM AND FUZZY.

SO LET ME GO THROUGH SOME THINGS HERE.

2014, BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT WHICH OWNS THE NEARBY MARSHALS PLAZA PURCHASED MACY'S BUILDING FOR 2 MILLION TO AVOID COMPETITION FOR RETAIL SPACE.

THAT'S NOT GOOD.

2018, ANOTHER COMPANY ACQUIRED THE SEARS BUILDING THROUGH BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.

2020 ONONDAGA COUNTY BOTS THE REST OF THE MALL FOR 3.5 MILLION.

THAT NUMBER IS KEY.

NOW TWO YEARS LATER THE COUNTY HAS AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE MALL TO A NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR $8 MILLION, CONDITIONAL UPON ALSO ACQUIRING THE SEARS AND MACY'S BUILDING BUILDINGS.

THAT'S A QUICK $4.5 MILLION FOR THE COUNTY.

SO THIS NEW DEVELOPER SAYS THEY OFFERED TO BUY MACIES AND SEARS OUTRIGHT GIVING THE OWNERS VETO MOWR OVER HOW THE MALL HAS CHANGED.

SO WHY HASN'T THAT GOON THROUGH?

IS IT BECAUSE THE EXISTING OWNERS LIKE THIS NON-COMPETITIVE BIT OR IS IT BECAUSE THE NEW BUYERS ARE LOW BALLING AND THINKING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER DEAL GOING THROUGH THE COUNTY DIRECTLY AND ALONE.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY... >> BOTTOM LINE IT.

>> I WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS.

I WANT TO FIND OUT.

YOU KNOW, I WANT TO KNOW WHY A PRIVATE DEAL CAN'T BE DONE.

>> THEY WANT MORE MONEY.

THAT WOULD BE THE MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION.

RIGHT?

>> SURE.

AND IN THAT CASE DO I THINK EMINENT DOMAIN IS JUSTIFIED?

I DON'T THINK SO.

>> THE QUESTION STILL IS, IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN?

>> I'M WITH CHAD, I DON'T LIKE EMINENT DOMAIN EITHER SO THE CITIZEN IN ME IS REPELLED BY THAT IDEA PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF TAKING PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

AT THE SAME TIME ITSELF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IN ME UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS A LARGE PROJECT THAT HAS A LOT OF BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY AND NOT ONLY ESTIMATED $12 MILLION IN ANNUAL STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUE BUT THE VARIETY OF PUBLIC SPACE AND RETAIL SPACE AND HOUSING THAT CAN BE USED SO IF YOU HAVE TWO OUT OF STATE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS HOLDING ON TO PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY WANT MORE MONEY, I'M NOT SUPER SYMPATHETIC.

AND AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, I WOULD DO IT.

>> WELL, I'LL SAY NOT AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, BUT AS AN AVID SHOPPER, SHOPPING TOWN MALL, IT IS A BIT OF A BLIGHT IN THE COMMUNITY IF YOU HAVE EVER GONE BY THERE AND IT'S A HUGE UNUSED SPACE THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF REVENUE.

BUT I AM HEEDING ALSO THE HARD LESSON THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM DESTINY USA TO NOT SORT OF GIVE AWAY THE FARM WITHOUT ENSURING THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET SOMETHING FOR OUR BUCK.

BUT AS TO THE QUESTION ABOUT EMNEPT DOMAIN-- EMINENT DOMAIN, NORMALLY THAT IS USED FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS THAT ARE PUBLICLY OWNED AND THEN FOR PRIVATE PROJECTS THAT ARE USED FOR WIDE PUBLIC USE.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT DID SAY IN 2005 THAT IT'S OKAY TO TAKE A PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR ONE PRIVATE OWNER TO GIVE TO ANOTHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO I SORT OF COME DOWN IN A SIMILAR PLACE AS TO ARE WE REALLY, IS THE COUNTY REALLY GOING TO GET MONEY OUT OF THIS?

AND WHAT OTHER TAX WRITEOFFS WILL BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER AND WILL MACY'S AND SEARS GET A FAIR AMOUNT FOR WHAT THEY'RE BEING TOLD THEY HAVE TO DO BECAUSE IF NOT, THAT COULD HAVE LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON THE WILLINGNESS OF OTHER STORES TO WANT TO COME IN.

>> TARA.

>> WELL, I'M GOING TO BE THE ONLY ONE ON THE PANEL TO SAY YES, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA AND IT SHOULD BE EMINENT DOMAIN SHOULD BE USED PARTIALLY BECAUSE I AGREE WITH NINA; THAT OLD SHOPPING TOWN MALL IS AN EYE SORE.

IT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND I HAVE WATCHED WHAT HAPPENED AS SHOPPING TOWN MALL DECLINED TO THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES.

SO ACTUALLY, THIS COULD ACTUALLY BE A BOON TO THAT MARSHALS PLAZA BECAUSE IT WILL DRAW MORE PEOPLE INTO THE AREA, CERTAINLY HAVING RESIDENTIAL CITIZENS LIVING THERE, THE RESIDENTS WILL PROVIDE MORE ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE AREA SO I THINK YES, WE SHOULD DO IT.

>> I WOULD BE OPEN TO IT IF BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT'S ONLY REASON FOR HOLDING ON TO THE PROPERTY AND DOING NOTHING IS ANTICOMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR TO KEEP COMPETITORS OUT.

>> WE SHOULD SAY AT THIS POINT THE POINT NINA WAS MAKING, THIS USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS DIFFERENT THAN SEIZING LAND TO BUILD A BRIDGE.

BUT NOW ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, WHICH AS I RECALL, WAS PRETTY CONTROVERSIAL AT THE TIME.

>> I WAS A 5-4 DECISION.

SO WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT PRINCIPLE IS GOING TO LAST.

>> OKAY, NOW WE HAVE TO GO TO OUR As AND F SO NINA YOUR F. >> OKAY, I KNOW THAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS A FAVORITE PUNCHING BAG THESE DAYS BUT A NEW BOOK ILLUSTRATES THAT THE TEXTBOOKS USED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE, BOTH IN THE NORTH AND IN THE SOUTH HAVE ALMOST ALWAYS PROMOTED WHITE SUPREMACY.

HE EXAMINED OVER 3,000 TEXTBOOKS FROM THE 1800s TO THE 1980s AND FOUND BOTH IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT RELIANCE ON RACIAL AND GENDER STEREOTYPES.

SO I'M GOING TO HOLD MY BREATH AND WAIT TO SEE WHAT TEXAS AND FLORIDA DO ABOUT THESE TEXTBOOKS.

>> TARA, YOUR F. >> TO FLORIDA GOVERNOR RAN DeSANTIS FOR A POOR HISTORY EDUCATION.

IN ONE OF HIS USUAL RANTS, GOVERNOR DeSANTIS STATED THAT LAST WEEK THAT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

THIS NOTION HAS BEEN REFUTED FOR YEARS.

THE HARVARD AND YALE EDUCATED DeSANTIS SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

>> LUKE, YOUR F. >> BIPARTISAN F RELATED TO FLORIDA.

MY F GOES TO STATEWIDE CANDIDATES IN FLORIDA FOR NOT SUSPENDING THEIR CAMPAIGNS DURING THE CURRENT STORM.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE DISPLACED WITHOUT POWER AND NEGATIVE ATTACK ADS KEEP RUNNING.

>> MY DEPARTMENT COLLEAGUES HELPED ME WITH MY GRADES TODAY.

MY F GOES TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.

LIZ TRUSS' NEW GOVERNMENT TAXES IN AN INFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT AND SHOCKED IT WOULD FUEL FURTHER INFLATIONARY CONCERNS AND CAUSE THE VALUE OF THE POUND TO PLUMMET FOR A FUN BRITISH TAKE ON THIS MESS, CHECK OUT A RECENT FINANCIAL TIMES SPEAK THAT REAGANISM IS A GOOD IDEA BUT REAGANISM WITHOUT THE DOLLAR IS NOT.

>> AND NOW TO THE As.

NINA.

>> FOLLOWING LUKE'S LEAD ON BIP, BIPARTISANSHIP CHUCK SCHUMER AND MITCH McCONNELL ENDORSING THE REFORM BILL.

THIS BILL WOULD AMEND THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT OF 1887 TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IS PURELY A MINISTERIAL ONE WHEN IT COMES TO COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES.

BASICALLY THIS IS MAKING A 135 YEAR PRECEDENT REQUIRED.

>> TARA ARE YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE LATE Dr. AUDREY EVANS, A PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGIST WHOSE LIFE LEGACY WILL BE PIONEER RESEARCHER ON NEUROBLASTOMA AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE RONALD McDONALD HOUSE.

SHE PASSED AWAY THURSDAY.

THANKS TO HER HOLISTIC METHODOLOGY FOR TREATING CHILDREN WITH CANCER, TODAY 80% OF CHILDREN WHO DEVELOP NEUROBLASTOMA SURVIVE.

>> AND LUKE.

>> MY A GOES TO LIZZO FOR ACCEPTING AN INVITE TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TO CHECK OUT THEIR FLUTE COLLECTION AND USING JAMES MADISON'S FLUTE AROUND TOWN.

>> CRYSTAL GLASS FLUTE, TOO.

>> CHAD.

>> WE HAVE ALL SEEN REPORTS THAT THE COLORADO RIVER IS IN DANGER BUT LET'S LOOK AT NUMBERS.

ONLY 6% OF THE RIVERS WATER USE COMES FROM RESIDENTIAL USERS WHEREAS 86% COMES FROM AGRICULTURE.

THAT MEANS REAL SOLUTIONS HAVE TO BE CENTERED WITH FARMS.

AN EXCELLENT VIDEO RELEASED TALKING ABOUT EFFORTS TO GET CITIES TO PAY FARMERS TO PARTICIPATE IN ROTATIONAL FALLOWING.

IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA THAT I THINK COULD HAVE SOME REAL IMPACT.

>> AND DO YOU KNOW HAVE CITIES PAID FARMS FOR WATER USE.

>> THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN L.A. AND SAN DIEGO PAYMENTS TO FARMS IN SOME DESERT IN CALIFORNIA.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.