What's your point? You could say the same thing about almost any major infrastructure project. We can't allow a handful of residents somewhere to veto everything. This is exactly what eminent domain was intended for: as long as they received fair compensation then it's fine.
You can't say "they know what they were getting into" when the state shows up and demolishes half a community that had been there for 130 years. I don't think anyone expects the state to force them off their land or their town demolished.
> We can't allow a handful of residents somewhere to veto everything.
We also shouldn't allow non-residents to profit off the pain of people who actually live where the infrastructure is.
My point is that the surrounding suburbs are suffering the pain of being adjacent to an airport while deriving very little benefit, and those do benefit want to expand to increase traffic. Chicago gets quite a lot out of the increasing traffic through O'hare while the people that actually live nearby don't.
We also shouldn't allow non-residents to profit off the pain of people who actually live where the infrastructure is.
Sir, this is the entire point of a suburb. Suburbs exist so their residents can take advantage of the infrastructural, entertainment and commercial benefits of a city without having to contribute to said municipality. Do you really lack that much self-awareness? By virtue of living in the suburb in the first place, you, yourself, are engaging in the very activity that you are decrying.
