Now Playing at Reason.tv: Drew Carey Exposes Eminent Domain Abuse in Hollywood

December 18, 2007

Reason.tv host Drew Carey revisits the problem of eminent domain abuse following up on his earlier video, National City: Eminent Domain Gone Wild.  

The City of Los Angeles used eminent domain to take a popular Hollywood bar and numerous other small businesses so that the city could hand the land over to private developers planning to build a W hotel and million-dollar condos.  Fortunately, there's a better way to revitalize neighborhoods. In contrast to Hollywood, nearby Anaheim has found a way to encourage redevelopment by working cooperatively with property owners, without using the power of eminent domain.

Click here to watch Redevelopment: A Tale of Two Cities, now.

Comments

|12.18.07 @ 7:26AM|#

How fitting that the land is being used for a "W" huh?

|12.18.07 @ 8:00AM|#

Anaheim has found a way to encourage redevelopment by working cooperatively with property owners, without using the power of eminent domain.

Uh-oh. Expect an anarchist beatdown for this.

|12.18.07 @ 8:20AM|#

"How fitting that the land is being used for a "W" huh?"

Not sure I grasp the significance...

|12.18.07 @ 8:59AM|#

While I realize that "W" hotels has no affiliation with ol' Dubya, eminent domain abuses have increased greatly under Bush.

Obviously, there is no literal connection, but it seems a little funny to me. Maybe I need more coffee...

|12.18.07 @ 9:20AM|#

If you're tearing down a large, occupied swath of the city - forcing whatever residents and businesses are there to leave - you have to ask, what are you trying to accomplish? Who are you serving?

|12.18.07 @ 9:21AM|#

OT: Has anyone clicked over to Drudge this morning? The top left two "stories" are rather interesting, and make me wonder if as this primary plays out we'll be looking at a Huckabee/Paul matchup.

|12.18.07 @ 9:22AM|#

Obviously, there is no literal connection

Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.

|12.18.07 @ 9:32AM|#

My buddies didn't die FACE DOWN IN THE MUD in Vietnam so some two bit hotel could just come in and take people's property...

LarryA|12.18.07 @ 9:41AM|#

If you're tearing down a large, occupied swath of the city - forcing whatever residents and businesses are there to leave - you have to ask, what are you trying to accomplish? Who are you serving?

"Let's see. I can leave the area as is, but several of the present owners are pissed that I haven't provided police protection or street repair. They might vote against me in the next election. Or I can toss them all out and have only one landowner who owes me bigtime for getting him the property. Decisions, decisions. And did I mention the hotel corp promised my useless son-in-law a job?"

While I realize that "W" hotels has no affiliation with ol' Dubya, eminent domain abuses have increased greatly under Bush.

Uh, this is Los Angeles, dude. Not a place where the local team wears red. I'd guess that well over half the local takings have been in thoroughly blue cities, and I believe that more red than blue states have passed laws reversing Kelo.

|12.18.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Since virtually all large cities in America are deep blue, and since redevelopment is an urban phenomenon, of course redevelopment takings have occured mostly in blue areas.

In other news, most farm aid goes to deep red areas.

|12.18.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Not a place where the local team wears red. I'd guess that well over half the local takings have been in thoroughly blue cities, and I believe that more red than blue states have passed laws reversing Kelo.

Dammit, I was talking in a dystopia, sci-fi, literary way.

Fine, Bush has nothing to do with this. I get it!

|12.18.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Taktix®

Actually it's not true that "eminent domain abuses have increased greatly under Bush."

They've actually been going on for a long time. One of the best examples is the land assembly for the World Trade Center in the 1960s.

The difference is that now the victims of ED abuse get a lot of positive media attenion and public sympathy, whereas the owners of the properties condemned for the WTC were portrayed as anti-social reactionaries.

|12.18.07 @ 10:02AM|#

My educated guess would be that takings decreased from the mid-70s through the end of the 1990s, then ticked back up.

|12.18.07 @ 10:03AM|#

Fortunately, there's a better way to revitalize neighborhoods. In contrast to Hollywood, nearby Anaheim has found a way to encourage redevelopment by working cooperatively with property owners, without using the power of eminent domain.

This, BTW, was the insight that led to the scrapping of the old Urban Renewal grants in favor of Community Development Block Grants, which are used to build areas up instead of wiping them out and starting over.

|12.18.07 @ 10:56AM|#

I know Taktix has confessed already, but it's funny that the prez always gets blame/credit for things that happen "on his watch", even if he had nothing to do with it. Thus, Bush I gets credit for the fall of communism, Clinton gets credit for the economic boom of the mid/late 90s, etc.

|12.18.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Didn't LA use imminent domain to tear down the bowling alley from The Big Labowski? What a shame that was. God forbid the darlings of LA don't have a gold plated building where they can not learn how to read or write in Spanish.

|12.18.07 @ 11:25AM|#

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110011006

Good article on this kind of thing going on in Texas.

|12.18.07 @ 11:47AM|#

imminent domain

Not sure if this is just misspelled, or if you're making a pointed argument about how commonplace this type of thing has become.

|12.18.07 @ 11:49AM|#

Regarding team red vs. team blue, although it seems a bit pointless here, it was the blue justices that supported the decision in Kelo, IIRC.

I remember thinking, "Does team blue like the people or the government better? And does team red like the people or big business better?" I was surprised at both answers.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.18.07 @ 12:17PM|#

nearby Anaheim has found a way to encourage redevelopment by working cooperatively with property owners, without using the power of eminent domain.

Except for that part where Anaheim bulldozed the entire city from Harbor Blvd to State College and 4 blocks in on both sides of Lincoln Avenue. There is absoltuely nothing left of Anaheim that predates 1975 except tract house neighborhoods and the BIG A. There are still empty weed infested lots that were never redeveloped.

Oh, and the Disney welfare where they took the strawberry field for the parking structure, and the American Van Lines HQ, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to make freeway access more convenient for Disneyland.

And the German Club that was given the boot for THE POND (now the Honda Center).

Anaheim is making a better effort but I would not hold it up as a model city.

|12.18.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Sorry, Taktix®, in view of your 9:52 post my 9:53 post looks slightly stupid. I was still composing it when you sent yours so I didn't see it.

I just love any chance I can get to rag on the Rockerfeller socialists.

|12.18.07 @ 12:56PM|#

If you're tearing down a large, occupied swath of the city - forcing whatever residents and businesses are there to leave - you have to ask, what are you trying to accomplish? Who are you serving?

Hmmm, the previous property owners, the public at large, or the guys at the country club?
Gentlemen, place your bets.

|12.18.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Issac,

No worries. I don't want to needlessly bash Bush anyway. There's enough that he's done to decry that making vague connections to unrelated events lessens the strength of real gripes.

|12.18.07 @ 1:55PM|#

TWC,

"Oh, and the Disney welfare where they took the strawberry field for the parking structure..."

You may know better than I, but I was under the impression that the "strawberry field" was owned by an old Japanese farmer that was quite content with the money he made growing strawberries; he had no need for the millions Disney had on the table for years. As soon as the old man died the grandkids sold the land about thirty seconds after their grandfather was in the ground. Admittedly, I could be wrong about this as I heard it seventh-hand. Despite living in Maryland I used to work for an Anaheim based company for nearly 25 years and am unfortunately familiar with the area.

|12.18.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Uh, this is Los Angeles, dude. Not a place where the local team wears red.

Umm, actually there's a pretty active red team in LA.

|12.18.07 @ 2:09PM|#

As much as I don't like the effect of the Kelso decision and believe that it is wrong for the state to use eminent domain in the way Kelso allows, is it not inconsistent for us that desire for the Supreme Court to interpret the law AS IT IS WRITTEN and to not interpret the law in the way the COURT WISHES IT TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.

It was my understanding of the Kelso decision that the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not prevent the state from using eminent domain with a very broad definition of the "public good." However, I also was under the impression that the same ruling made it clear that a broad definition of public good was rife with the opportunity for abuse and if the legislatures wanted to eliminate the potential for abuse then they needed to write laws to tighten-up the definition of the "public good.

??|12.18.07 @ 4:53PM|#

How did Drew get so fat? It's disgusting.

The Wine Commonsewer|12.18.07 @ 6:58PM|#

MayorOmalleySuxs, you may be right. That old Japanese farmer liked growing strawberries. He also hated Disney for some long forgotten reason.

Call it a possible case of dramatic license brought on by the idea that Anaheim is some kind of property rights haven. However, that strawberry field sold (or whatever) coincident with the massive redevelopment of the last few years that was primarily for the benefit of Disney.

I will grant you, it may be better than it once was, but once all the undesirable stuff is bulldozed one can be much more magnanimous about the rest of the plebes and their so-called real estate.

|12.18.07 @ 8:51PM|#

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but it was when SCOTUS was decidedly a liberal leaning court (Justices that were democratic and appointed by democratic presidents) that the eminent domain ruling that allows for this sort of gross injustice to occur.

It was their reasoning that forcing the eminent domain and giving the land to private developers helped the community as a whole. Their reasoning was decidedly socialistic, and not of conservative private ownership.

Me|12.18.07 @ 8:55PM|#

One more thing to add to my above comment to reinforce my argument. If you look at the decision, it was the liberal judges who voted in favor, while the conservatives voted against.

So blaming Bush is completely whacked and even downright ignorant of the facts.

|12.18.07 @ 9:27PM|#

MayorOMalleySuxs is right about the law.

Any ruling for the plaintiffs in the Kelo case would have required the court to throw out precedent on the definition of "public use" going back to the period immediately after the War of Independence, and make up a new one on the spot.

|12.18.07 @ 11:49PM|#

How did Drew get so fat? It's disgusting.

You can take the man out of Ohio...