Wall Street Journal on Eminent Domain Abuse in Brooklyn

Damon W. Root | October 13, 2009

The Wall Street Journal has a nice editorial today criticizing New York for the Atlantic Yards land grab:

The anti-Kelo wave is cresting in New York this week as plans for a new basketball arena clash with the property rights of state voters in a watershed state court case.

In Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, residents and business owners are challenging the state's use of eminent domain to condemn private property in a Brooklyn neighborhood for the benefit of a private developer. Spawned by developer Forest City Ratner, the "Atlantic Yards" project would build a new venue for the New Jersey Nets, along with office towers and apartment buildings.

According to the state and developer, this qualifies as a "public use"—the designation required to justify the seizure of private property under the law. Once limited to public projects like roads or bridges, "public use" has become an evolving legal concept that considers assorted "public benefits" provided even in a private development. Under that standard, nearly any new building project would qualify if it could be judged more appealing than current occupants of the property.

Read the whole thing here. I discuss the case here.

Comments

|10.13.09 @ 8:42AM|#

Wow, only in New York guys! LOL

RT
www.true-privacy.net.tc

Xeones|10.13.09 @ 8:54AM|#

LOL indeed, Mr. Beeno. LOL indeed.

John Tagliaferro|10.13.09 @ 9:14AM|#

Xeones,

Great new URL!

Xeones|10.13.09 @ 9:28AM|#

Why thank you, Mr. Tagliaferro. And how is your mother?

John Tagliaferro|10.13.09 @ 9:38AM|#

She is just peachy preparing to move soon. My fictional mother in the books is staying put, but still spry.

How are your people?

Xeones|10.13.09 @ 9:41AM|#

I am a man without a country, my friend. A lonely tumbleweed, passing through wherever the wind takes me.

No, seriously, they're good.

What The|10.13.09 @ 10:15AM|#

Can we start this one over?

Rhywun|10.13.09 @ 11:21AM|#

I think we're all worn out from fighting Chad on this one just the other day.

Isaac Bartram|10.13.09 @ 12:05PM|#

Man, I missed that won.

Ah, yes, Chad, like all the defenders of the "little guy" reveals himself as an apologist for plutocrats.

|10.13.09 @ 12:33PM|#

Well duh. The "little guy" has no idea what to with his property, and only through the Blessed Guidance of said plutocrats can the best outcome* be assured.

(*best for the plutocrats to be sure)

Nate|10.13.09 @ 1:50PM|#

How could anyone support this shit? Hey, my neighbors and I got together and we decided we'd rather have an artificial swan pond than that black guy's house. So, peace, homes!

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|10.13.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Ask Chad.

If you dare.

If you're willing to consort with such a he?[1]

[1] him? Help me Grammar Man (tm), help me!

Rhywun|10.13.09 @ 7:01PM|#

You can't put a pronoun there. Nouns work, though. E.g. "slimebag" or "scumbucket".