New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 29, 2004

Jacob Sullum condemns an eminent domain abuse.

Comments

|10.29.04 @ 12:54PM|#

Each and every eminent domain action should be considered as important as keeping the door closed until one is sure of a visitor's intentions. In this case the visitor is up to no good. If we let our property rights become as marginalized as our 2nd Amendment rights, we are in deep trouble.

|10.29.04 @ 2:03PM|#

Just out of curiosity: has anybody found any articles speaking in favor of the city in this case? This counts as 'local' news here in Connecticut, and there's a whole mess of articles explaining the obvious reasons why this is wrong. But I would be very curious to read the opinion of someone (other than Pfizer) who sides with the city in this case, yet all of my Google searches have been for naught. Has anybody found any such thing?

|10.29.04 @ 2:16PM|#

Jennifer, I can tell you that the other liberal-left city planners in my office are unanimously opposed to the city's actions. Not even people who have dedicated their adult lives to using eminent domain to fight urban blight are behind this.

The IJ picked the right case here. This is outrageous.

|10.29.04 @ 2:20PM|#

Joe-
I'm not surprised that you (and any other decent person) would be opposed to this. But SOMEBODY out there must think it's a good idea, and I'd be very interested to read why. Know Your Enemy, and all that.

|10.29.04 @ 2:27PM|#

Pfizer and the local politicians they bought obviously think it's a great idea.

The thought process behind this is more akin to bribing a mayor to get a job in City Hall than to an articulated philosophical position.

|10.29.04 @ 2:44PM|#

It's a very encouraging sign that the Supremes took this case for review. On average, the Supreme court reverses about 75 - 80% of the cases they take. (This is one reason I'm worried about them taking the Raich v. Ashcroft (medical marijuana) case).

Based on past decisions involving property rights, I think the Supremes will reverse this decision and restore some property rights.

|10.29.04 @ 2:54PM|#

Technically, Steve, this wouldn't be a restoration of rights already lost, so much as a prevention of a loss of rights. The idea that a city can take private land for private development even if that land is not blighted is a novel position.

In the case of Poletown and that case that made 60 Minutes, the cities at least argued that they were taking blighted land, and the courts reversed on the grounds that the land wasn't really blighted.

Perry|10.29.04 @ 3:02PM|#

I find it hard to believe that people can't follow the pretty small steps that it takes to get from:

Step 1 - Allowing the government to decide in the name of equality, economics, blight clearance, etc. ad infinitum whether private individuals maintain ownership rights to their own property.

to Step 2 - Surprise! The people with the money and resources to buy off politicians and secure political influence happen to control the process behind Step 1.

You can't create a tool and then bitch about how its used.

|10.29.04 @ 3:39PM|#

Perry,

"You can't create a tool and then bitch about how its used."

So my choices are support the Iraq War, or support the abolition of the military?

Hypocrite that I am, I think the cops who tortured Abner Louima were wrong, AND I believe New York City should have a police department.

It must be a liberal thing.

Perry|10.29.04 @ 4:00PM|#

Joe,

War is not a tool, A police department is not a tool.

Creating eminent domain procedures to seize peoples property rights is a tool.

Allowing torture of prisoners is another tool, and if you open up that can of worms, then you can't complain about how it is used, for instance.

I was wondering when you would respond. ;)

Gene Berkman|10.29.04 @ 5:00PM|#

The article mentions the plans individuals had for their property, and says "the city argues that its plan should override the plans of these people..."

I guess the city planners must have been paying attention when Zell Miller spoke at the GOP Convention.

|10.29.04 @ 5:04PM|#

This project did not come from the city planners. It came from the political leadership.

Let's be clear about that.

|10.29.04 @ 6:10PM|#

I don't know why libertarians (small l's, and the big L's for that matter) don't jump all over these sorts of issues. I can't think of a better issue to get people thinking about what they really want out of government. This is just the sort of controversy that could appeal to both disgruntled conservatives and disgruntled liberals. What do we have here? Government exceeding it's constitutional bounds to take the property of private individuals to give to other private parties? Check. Large corporations using their political sway to take advantedge of those without power? Check. I'm baffled why more libertarians don't jump all over issues like this. Whether you're for the war or against the war, what the hell difference does it make, if rights as basic as our right to our own property are being violated here at home. Good story by the way, I've been waiting to see a bit more about whats going on here in my CT backyard.

Highway|10.29.04 @ 7:15PM|#

What are the chances that a ruling in this case by the SCOTUS would put a definition on the use of Eminent Domain in 'blight' cases? Or is 'blight' like 'obscenity': One knows it when one sees it. I hope not, but I also hope for a more expansive decision in Kelo's favor, curbing the use of 'blight' as a reason to use Eminent Domain.

|10.31.04 @ 10:12AM|#

the car dealership used in "Fargo" was a victom of Eminent Domain; as were some perfectly nice homes.

http://www.lileks.com/mpls/modern/deadburb/index.html