Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSVery bad news out of Albany this morning: New York’s Court of Appeals has just upheld the state’s controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. I’ll have more details later.
Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
← Reason Morning Links: Impeachment Hearings for…
|
Main
|
Speaking Government-Funded Truth to Government-Funded Power →
|11.24.09 @ 10:03AM|#
Fuckers. Average people lose their homes so some Russian billionaire can get a new arena for his sucky basketball team. Just remember, the government cares about the people.
Michael Ejercito|11.24.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Fuckers. Average people lose their homes so some Russian billionaire can get a new arena for his sucky basketball team. Just remember, the government cares about the people.
The best thing to do is to dump thousands of tons of the most
toxic waste at the proposed site. The developer will then be
forced to pay for the cleanup.
Mike M.|11.24.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Sad, but not surprising. When was the last time a high court DIDN'T uphold an eminent domain abuse?
|11.24.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Surprise, some planner finds a neighborhood of people living within their means and sees blight.
hmm|11.24.09 @ 10:25AM|#
Incoming New London lot.
I thought Ratner couldn't raise the money? Which I guess wouldn't influence a legal proceeding.
Bruce Ratner|11.24.09 @ 10:34AM|#
But wait a minute! Can't you all see it's in my best self-interest? It is freedom and innovation at its best! And besides it's only poor and unproductive people getting screwed anyway.
Colin|11.24.09 @ 10:50AM|#
After Kelo, why shouldn't they have upheld it? Don't they have to follow what the Supreme Court decides?
robc|11.24.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Only federally. They could base their decision off the NY constitution (I have no idea what it says about ED).
|11.24.09 @ 11:53AM|#
As a very general rule, yes, U.S. Supreme Court rulings establish precedent that binds all other courts in the U.S. However, you have to look at what the particular case actually does. Kelo does not mandate that every other court rule in favor of the developer taking other people's property. It simply ruled (incorrectly) that the taking at question in the New London case did not violate the Constitution, under the specific facts and circumstances of that case.
This court is free to rule that the taking in this particular case does violate the Constitution. One question is whether this case is distinguishable from Kelo, based on the facts of each case.
Another general principle is that a court can interpret a Constitutional protection more broadly than SCOTUS does, but cannot construe it more narrowly. E.g., let's say SCOTUS had gotten Kelo right and ruled that the taking did violate the Constitution. If another court then found itself presented with the identical set of facts, it could not rule that the taking did not violate the Constitution - because SCOTUS already ruled that those facts constitute a violation.
There are, unfortunately, a lot of subtleties at play in a case like this.
P B|11.24.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Thank you supreme court for expanding the governments power to steal even more from us.
|11.24.09 @ 12:15PM|#
The power for government to take land is granted by the Constitution, as long as just compensation is given.
From the 5th amendment
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
|11.24.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Except this is private property being taken for other private use.
If I were a home owner in that district, I would totally "Waco up" over this, and I hope that some of them do form a compound and hold the ground against all comers.
juris imprudent|11.24.09 @ 11:01AM|#
Well, I am shocked that this arm of the government has upheld the over reach by another arm. Shocked. Never heard of such a thing.
|11.24.09 @ 11:18AM|#
The New York Times graces us with an article practically applauding the decision. They seem to have forgotten to include the disclosure statement about how the land for their headquarters was acquired.
|11.24.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Not surprising. Many people have no problem treating others in a way that they would not want to be treated themselves.
|11.24.09 @ 11:35AM|#
I recently saw a NYT article by some useless twat extolling the virtues of New York's zoning laws, because they keep the city "authentic".
He was particularly happy because he could walk out of the fabulous new cultural treasure the NYT now calls home, and find charming restaurants.
No mention of the restauranteurs displaced using eminent domain and political clout.
I hate those fuckers.
T|11.24.09 @ 12:18PM|#
I recently saw a NYT article by some useless twat extolling the virtues of New York's zoning laws, because they keep the city "authentic".
No wonder all those uppity East Coast types hate Houston. We got no zoning, so we must be inauthentic.
eb|11.24.09 @ 12:26PM|#
yeah but you also have some of the most affordable middle class housing for an urban area in the country... i live in Arlington VA... strict land management... cets all types awards for its "progressive" smart development. And yeah it has its benifits, and theres a reason why I chose to live here, but it comes at a very high cost. Housing costs a fortune here due to all the restriction on supply.
|11.24.09 @ 12:36PM|#
No wonder all those uppity East Coast types hate Houston. We got no zoning, so we must be inauthentic.
Authenticity is the kind of thing you can leave to chance.
|11.24.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Authenticity is NOT the kind of thing you can leave to chance.
stupid keyboard
|11.24.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Houston is just full of Mexicans and Rednecks starting businesses, building houses and living unsustainable lifesyles. You really can't expect the NYT not to object to such things.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245