Most countries have a form of eminent domain, that isn't an indicator for authoritarianism in and of itself. What's relevant is the checks and balances that are applied, and if they're effectively applied.

Yes, but it’s a bureaucratic process that involves a lot of red tape and ultimately has to compensate the displaced property owner. It definitely gets abused sometimes, and property owners are often undercompensated, but there are at least thresholds that must be met.

In China, there is no private land ownership. Residents lease their land from the state. So if the state says a railroad is coming through, your lease simply doesn’t get renewed, and you no longer have the right to remain in your house. It’s efficient and highly collectivist, but discompassionate.

They're going to be laying track in California in 2026. The roadway has been completed for 170 miles, and the environmental impacts completed for the entire phase one.

It's slow and expensive, but it's happening.

How is that an oxymoron? An authoritarian government isn't excluded from doing good things. Most authoritarian governments have done some good, it's just not an excuse for the authoritarianism or whatever else those respective governments are up to.

And take a closer look at California high speed rail. Public consultations have factored into how things are/were planned. It's far from ideal, and especially in the US there are plenty of problems (take a look at Europe for better examples, even though they're far from perfect). And at least in the US, there are elections that, as very imperfect as they are, the citizens still (emphasis on still) have a certain say as to how things are running.

I mean, yeah, working in the transit branch, I would love to ram things through the way they do in China - it would make my job way easier and I've had colleagues fantasize about it, but in the whole of things, I am glad that the people still hold a certain amount of power here. Unchecked power is never a good thing.