Eminent Domain Abuse on 60 Minutes

Here's a plug for the good guys over at the Institute for Justice, a DC-based nonprofit that rightly bills itself as "nation?s premier libertarian public interest law firm."

This Sunday, 60 Minutes is doing a segment on eminent domain abuse that features some of IJ's clients in Ohio and Arizona. For a preview of the outrageous actions you'll see on Sunday, check out this recent Reason story, "Wrecking Property Rights: How cities use eminent domain to seize property for private developers."

Comments

[Warren]

The same people that that told us apples are poison, now wave the banner for a cause I believe in. This may be the best thing that ever happened (or even could happen) for the issue of eminent domain. That makes me sooo umm... I think I need a drink.

[joe]

I think you've confused the IJ with the Alliance for Justice.

Different animal altogether.

[Warren]

No, I was talking about 60 minutes

[j]

But I would imagine it is a cause with some appeal to elements on the genuine left (not that they are best represented by 60 minutes of course). After all, who hasn't heard a story or two from within their own neighborhood of the "little guy" being driven out of his small business by the government purely through the use of eminent domain laws? And who benefits from it? The alleged beneficiary is the neighborhood from which a so called "blight" has been removed and for which "jobs have been created". The more direct beneficiary is always some nationwide supermarket or chain gas station, or other large corporation.

[joe]

j,

The "elements of the left" you refer to are otherwise knows as "the vast majority of the American people," which explains 60 Minutes would touch it. Brave stands on controversial issues being, shall we say, among their lesser virtues. They're doing it for the ratings.

Similarly, the IJ knows a winner when it sees one, and swings for the fences on every one of these hanging curves that they plaster all over the news. They're doing it for the politics. Hopefully, they (meaning, Mom and Pop who let them take the case) won't lose a slam dunk case against a real outrage because the lawyers decided there shouldn't be any revitalization plans, ever.

[Kevin Carson]

This is an issue that's even appearing in Readers' Digest now. About time.

[Jason]

I give them credit - they took on the NY Times vile land grab. Although the folks at the Times are not at their strongest, that's not the type of "BIG BUSINESS" The 60 Mintues of the world usually decry.

[bennett]

Neal Boortz, a nationally syndicated radio talking head out of Atlanta, has been all over this for a couple of months on his show as well. Hop over to his website, http://www.boortz.com, and check out his program notes to see the latest.

[Ashlyn Barker]

I completely agree with anything against eminent domain... if the goverment's houses are blighted why is that any different? Why don't they sarefice their houses for something public? How is that any different?

[Ashlyn Barker]

I completely agree with anything against eminent domain... if the goverment's houses are blighted why is that any different? Why don't they sarefice their houses for something public? How is that any different?

[Ashlyn Barker]

I completely agree with anything against eminent domain... if the goverment's houses are blighted why is that any different? Why don't they sarefice their houses for something public? How is that any different?

[Ashlyn Barker]

I completely agree with anything against eminent domain... if the goverment's houses are blighted why is that any different? Why don't they sarefice their houses for something public? How is that any different?