Shorter Lefty Blogosphere Reaction to Kelo

• "hoyapaul," on The Daily Kos*: Thank God we stopped the property-rights extremists in their tracks!
• Atrios: It could have been worse -- conservatives could have written a majority opinion.
• Matthew Yglesias: It's not the end of the world, therefore I'm angry that people are outraged about it.

Taking the cake (or should I say "razing the house"?) is this nauseating New York Times editorial, which begins thusly:

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.

Yesterday, Julian Sanchez asked, in the wake of Raich and Kelo, "will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?" A preliminary answer -- some may have, but several of the more influential ones have concluded that the unchecked government power to bulldoze your home and sell your property to Wal-Mart is the price we all must pay to avoid the scourge of "property rights extremism." Rarely are public policy issues so stark, in terms of revealing whose side you're on. If it's a mainstream liberal idea that defending the rights of an individual human against the zillion-pound hammer of government is "extremism," then mainstream liberalism is sicker than I thought.

* Originally said "kos." Damned group weblogs!

UPDATE: Like I said, "stark." Yglesias comments on my Wal-Mart scenario: "Pejorative rhetoric aside, that's absolutely correct." Then adds:

Matt, Julian, and co. down at Reason have an extreme and pernicious view of property rights that, if implemented in full, would have disastrous consequences for the country.

You heard it right: If our nation's city halls didn't have the ability to seize your property any time they thought a new owner could produce more sales-tax revenue, the result would be "disastrous." It's a wonder how we made it through those first two centuries….

Comments

[eth4n]

Holy fuck, has the world gone crazy?

[Matt Welch]

In case it's unclear, the Kos/Atrios/Yglesias bits are my snarky summaries, not verbatim excerpts, unlike the NYT quote.

[kevrob]

Note what the NYT `fesses up to:

(The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

Pinch & Co. aren't actually coming to the table with clean hands, are they? Bastards.

I wonder if they'll start puting "press rights movement" in scare quotes anytime soon?

Kevin

[Matt]

Matt, I think its actually referred to as the zillion pound shithammer.

[Matt Welch]

Matt -- I know, but I've had awful pottymouth lately....

[dhex]

liberals are such fuckfaces.

god, everyone's a fuckface. even me, right now, complaining about a whole class of people, is a fuckface.

fuck.

[Matt]

What? This has fuck all to do with zoning and environmental regulations!

Dear God, it's like some of hardest core on the left are so desperate to cheer for their team that they completely gloss over the fact that this is a pro-business ruling at the expense of the ordinary citizenry that they so often demand that the government protect! One would think that the cognitive dissonance would make their heads explode. At least the left is now arguing amongst itself with the rationally thinking moderates against the diehard sheep-like cheerleaders.

[His Majesty]

To go along with Matt's last comment...If the Left dissolves (probably won't happen, but if it does...), I'm frightened that the GOP will have total dominance. No one will be able to stop them. Both of these latest court rulings are atrocious--what is this country coming to?

[Jeff]

"Right-wing libertarian types"

See, they're idiots. They cannot discriminate between two different things. They probably judge Philip K. Dick novels by he film adaptations.

Matt, just wait for the first low income neighborhood to be razed for a mall. They'll call the SCOTUS lackeys-for-hire.

[smacky]

I just thought that I should mention that while searching reason.com's site for "Kelos" on Google (which yielded no results from Reason's website itself, strangely), this link did show up - citing Reason.com as "extreme liberarians" . I feel like I should pull out my skateboard and my latest flavor of Mountain Dew and do some tricks for some unsteady-cam, fisheye-lens camera filtered through a cheezy shade of neon. (Dude, I'm just trying to be extreme.)

[Justin Slotman]

To be fair, that wasn't kos himself, but somebody on his site.

[Adam]

if bloomberg wasn't a pussy, he'd eminent domain the fuck out of the new york times building and show those fuckwads how fucking cool that ruling was.

[smacky]

Oh shit, I figured out why my search produced little to no results....d'oh! Kelo

[kwais]

Where is Joe?

Joe, come and tell us why the left is so right on this.

[Matt the Other]

Damn, how many Matts are here? Just to clarify, I am the Matt that wrote "This has fuck all to do with zoning and environmental regulations!" The other Matt comments are from someone else with whom the rest of you are probably more familiar.

[ChicagoTom]

As a self-proclaimed liberal, I just wanted to say that I part company with most of the high profile lefties on this point. And I think there are many liberals (who dont have influence and blogs) who are disturbed by it as well. Many of my liberal friends hold the same position as me.

Im not a big fan of eminant domain. Although, I believe there are legitamite public uses that justify the use of eminant domain, this unchecked power is really nuts. I am sickened by the loose interpretation of "public use" and last time I looked around (esp here in Illinois) most eminant domain instances are nothing but corporate / developer giveaways / rewards to politial donors. My hope going into this case was that the majority would have written a reasonable opinion that placed some limits/restrictions on the use of eminant domain (And ruled on the side of the homeowners). Sadly just the opposite has happened. I fail to see how anything that generates more tax revenue can replace people's private property.

Please don't paint all liberals with such a broad stroke just because some of the more high profile ones are taking a "I disagree but I understand why it happened" approach.

[Showtime]

Well...there go my plans to buy into a poor neighborhood and fix up an old shitbox ... thanks Uncle Sam, you fucking thief, tonight I will be drinking to McVeigh, Karresh, and Rudolph.

[Matt]

One would think that the cognitive dissonance would make their heads explode

As someone with almost all my democratic tendencies completely, and happily, dissipated, I can still recognize the liberal rationalization here. A vestigial urge to utopia, its summed up by the Daily Kos when he says, had the ruling gone the other way it would have limited local government's ability to build communities. All that trumps any biz giveaway in the liberal mind.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

* Recent Supreme Court ruling against states' democratic legalization of medical MJ

* Recent Supreme Court ruling against individual property rights

* House passing Flag Burning amendment and a stronger possibility that the Senate may cave in this time.

* French store tells a fat ugly bitch celebrity that she can't enter their shop after they are closed, and it becomes an international race issue.

It's going to be a long, hot summer..

[Matthew]

I'm a Matt too, actually. Because of the overabundance of Matts however, I may start posting under my real name, Petunia Picklehead.

[Russ D]

As commenter Matt alluded to, this is the left basically saying that supply-side economics is fine after all, as long as it suits their aesthetics.

[smacky]

had the ruling gone the other way it would have limited local government's ability to build communities.

And this goes hand-in-hand with the true liberals' purpose in life: to descend off of their lofty perch and help others by helping their own rich suburban interests, in the name of community .

[Evan Williams]

Because, as everyone knows, the only (and best!) way to build a community is via government fiat.

[Matt number 2]

Im the Matt who loves the phrase zillion pound shithammer, and, as a perhaps permenantly ex-Dem, who attempts to translate the mindset in the next post.

Another thought that Nick, I think, touched on yesterday. I wonder who's buying the new Ry Cooder cd Chavez Ravine, dedicated to the memory of the neighborhood siezed and razed to make way for Dodger stadium?

[wellfellow]

His Majesty,

"If the Left dissolves (probably won't happen, but if it does...), I'm frightened that the GOP will have total dominance. "

If that happens, which it won't, I'd wager on the GOP splitting into two, anyway. Which would be the best thing to happen to them.

[Jason Ligon]

I perversely enjoy watching the left defend an unrestricted federal government imprisoning cancer patients and giving siezed houses to rich people.

As Matt mentioned, it is a stark issue with stark outcomes. The modern left is concerned first and foremost with protecting the federal governments ability to regulate every aspect of your life. joe's insistence that it is always about protecting the weak against the strong becomes clearly laughable in the face of the kind of commentary we get from Kos, Atrios, and Yglesias. It is fundamentally about being able to enforce vision of the good society. The enemy is not the powerful, the enemy is whoever dares to disagree with the vision. Has it ever been more clear that protecting individual rights is not even on the radar of the left anymore?

[jf]

You thought the lefty blogosphere was coherent and principled? All the chic left-liberal blogs I've read are always more concerned with being anti-Bush and anti-Republican (and even, as one commenter to the Atrios post made clear, anti-Calo) than having clear, consistent ideals and principles.

[jf]

Calo? Meant CATO.

[Matt Welch]

I only comment as "Matt Welch," except for one time by accident. And thanks, Justin.

Chicago Tom, I used "if" for a reason. Many/most of my friends could probably be described as liberals, and they are outraged silly by this ruling; in fact just the other day a liberal-ish friend and I drove by the school being erected on the site of the Eminent Domain-razed Hollywood Star Lanes (a great dive bar/bowling alley made famous in The Big Lebowski), and the both of us erupted into spontaneous & very crude mockery of the L.A. City Council Dems who thought that was a swell idea....

[dead_elvis]

Perfect timing for the Herbie movie coming out. Maybe some parents will get nostalgiac and rent Herbie Rides Again:

"Alonzo Hawk is a mean-spirited property developer who has bought several blocks of land in the downtown district in order to build a gigantic shopping mall. There is one problem however; an elderly widow named Steinmetz won't sell the one remaining lot that Hawk needs to proceed with his scheme. So he resorts to all manner of chicanery, legal or otherwise, to get it. Fortunately, the widow Steinmetz has an ace up her sleeve in the form of Herbie, the miraculous Volkswagen."

[smacky]

All the chic left-liberal blogs I've read are always more concerned with being anti-Bush and anti-Republican (and even, as one commenter to the Atrios post made clear, anti-Calo) than having clear, consistent ideals and principles.

So in other words, left-liberals are the rebellious Satanic teenagers of the political spectrum.

[dead_elvis]

Thanks Petunia, for giving me a chuckle.

[Evan McElravy]

If the Left dissolves (probably won't happen, but if it does...), I'm frightened that the GOP will have total dominance. No one will be able to stop them. Both of these latest court rulings are atrocious--what is this country coming to?

A good question indeed, Your Majesty, but remember that nature abhores a vacuum.

[Mark Borok]

If you read the comments section on that DailyKos diary, almost all of the commenters are against this ruling.

Or do comments sections not count?

[Troy]

Sigh!

The 4th amendment is a pile of crap.
A big chunk of the 5th Amendment has been wiped off the face of the earth.
The idea that criminals get speedy trials pursuant to the VI amendment is a crock of shit.
The 9th amendment means nothing.
The 10th amendment was just pulled off the respirator.

What adds to the sadness is that few will be angry or even notice because, well fuck dude, American Idol is on tonight.

I am ashamed to be an American at the moment.

[Ken Layne]

Jesus fucking christ ... I wish I hadn't read this. I guess it never occured to me that ANYBODY could possibly find the government-run seizure and destruction of Americans' homes to give the land to a developer as a good thing. They're serious, aren't they? I am increasingly convinced that Alex Jones is right about everything.

[mike_twincities]

Re: Eminent domain. As one poster said, plant an endagered species on your lawn. Then they can't touch you.

Re: Summer. It will indeed, be a long, hot summer. By fall, we should have martial law.

Re: Herbie. Ah, the perverse irony. A widow with a Jewish name being saved by the "people's car."

Hrm.

Live free, fight or fall.

[dead_elvis]

Here's yet another one from San Diego: I don't know if you can tell from the little picture, but this guy's store sure doesn't look blighted to me. He's screwed.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050624/news_1n24condemn.html

Have the courts ever ruled on what is and isn't "blighted?" It might not do much for property rights, but at least defining it properly might prevent some of the more egregious abuses.

[Mark Borok]

And now that I read the complete Atrios post, he clearly says that he's against this ruling as well.

[norbizness]

I have way too many links on my site, and I would say that a majority of liberals/leftists have come down against the majority opinion in this case, including myself (sorry Matt, I must just have a lot more free time than you).

Most see it in the same way they saw the medical marijuana case (no limit to federal power, no way for an eminent domain proceeding not to be classified as "in the public interest.") But, if a diarist on Kos and a half-hearted denunciation from OUR LEADER ATRIOS comprises the totality of "liberal" or "leftist" thought, who am I to argue?

[PintofStout]

Chicago Tom, I used "if" for a reason. Many/most of my friends could probably be described as liberals, and they are outraged silly by this ruling; in fact just the other day a liberal-ish friend and I drove by the school being erected on the site of the Eminent Domain-razed Hollywood Star Lanes (a great dive bar/bowling alley made famous in The Big Lebowski), and the both of us erupted into spontaneous & very crude mockery of the L.A. City Council Dems who thought that was a swell idea....

Only one thing left to say...

"Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowling."

[ed]

Atrios also said this:

Yes, this is a bad decision, but we must think of what the alternative might have been. I don't know what was in the hearts of the justices who ruled the way did, they may be fully on board this apparent belief in the unlimited power of eminent domain. This is not something I support.

So I'm not sure how exactly he supports the decision?

[ChicagoTom]

Matt Welch,

I wasn't directing my comment at you, it was more directed at some of the other posters who keep painting "liberals" and "lefties" with broad strokes.

Having said that, I am repulsed by sentiments such as Atrios's which reads to me like he believes there can be no comfortable middle ground. It doens't seem to me at all rational to think of this as an all or nothing issue. I dont see the only alternative to the current ruling as being one that completely blows away the ability of municipalities to ever use eminant domain.

[Tim]

There is a James Stewart movie called You Can't Take It With You where an evil rich man is trying to buy out an entire block to build a warehouse. There is one "zany" family of holdouts led by John Barrymore. They are cast as the good guys in the movie. I wonder today how that movie would make the "hold outs" appear as they try to hold off Target and the local government from taking their home. How dare those people attempt to stop economic progress.

[Grant Gould]

But hey, at least we've still got the Third Amendment!

[Matt Welch]

ed, Mark -- I summarized Atrios' post like this: "It could have been worse -- conservatives could have written a majority opinion." Within the bounds of the "shorter" genre, that seems fair, no?

[matt]

"Damn, how many Matts are here?"

For real...I thought me and Welch (since he writes for the magazine) were the only Matt's who hang out around here.

-matt (with a "small m")

[MikeP]

It will probably take at least a generation of federal mismanagement by the conservative "small government while we're out of power, big government while we're in power" movement before liberals finally realize that giving government power is not a good in and of itself.

The fact that the people give a power to government does not imply that the people have any say over how that power gets used. That notion is utterly foreign to the supporters of this decision.

[jf]

ed, you neglected the rest of the paragraph:

However, the alternative could've been a conservative written opinion severely limiting the power of eminent domain and the concept of public use, which would've eviscerated a truly necessary government power.

Translation: It's better for the "conservatives" to have lost than to reaffirm a basic human right.

[MikeP]

To be cynical, this decision is a win-win for outlets like the Times. If the government can now carry out missions of redevelopment in the public interest, the Times is happy because they feel they can shape them and support the result. If the government locally abuses the power, then the Times can run investigations, exposes, and editorials and sell papers to the outraged masses.

To be more analytical, there is an underlying truth here about why the media is more often liberal than not. Most media really want to improve the lives of the populace, and they see their outlet in a strong position to suggest and motivate those improvements. It appears obvious to them that the government is the best mechanism to make those improvements happen. After all, they think, if only the government did the right thing, the right result would surely occur. So they see their mission as making the government do the right thing.

In taking this position -- that government is by its nature a good thing whose levers are the media's to pull -- the media abandon all hope of principle. In fact they really care about only two freedoms: the freedom of the press, so they can influence the people and the government, and the freedom to vote, so the people can change the government at the media's behest.

Other freedoms -- like, say, the freedom of private property -- are to be sacrificed to the first government to come forward and say, "We have an idea to improve the lives of the populace."

[Brett]

OT, but I love the comment ratings that Kos has setup at his retooled website. A quote:

You rated a comment above of mine a "1", which is clearly an abuse of the ratings, since I made a productive contribution that you don't happen to agree with. The rating system is not to show agreement or disagreement. I have returned the favor so you can feel injustice yourself.

Screw Kelo...THIS is injustice!

[jf]

MikeP:
In case you haven't realized, for 99% of politicians it's "principals when campaigning, power when governing". Ron Paul is one of a handful of exceptions to this rule, and for actually sticking to principles he gets ridiculed from the left and right.

[Eion]

Yeah - now the government just seizes your house, demolishes it and builds a barracks on the land, rather than just quartering the soldiers in your house.

[Nikos A. Leverenz]

Matt --

Thanks for qualifying the word "liberalism" with "mainstream." "Extreme libertarians" -- even those of us who hate hip soft drinks and can't skateboard -- must be mindful about preserving the true meaning of the word:

http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp

We must also never, ever place the words property rights in quotation marks. It is tantamount to putting civil rights in quotation marks. With the continued advocacy of state-sanctioned racial preferences by journalistic venues like the NYT it is probably more appropriate, however.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken

[Mr. Nice Guy]

As individual liberties are being chipped away before our very eyes, I have to wonder, which is worse, being a faceless drone for the left, or a faceless drone for the right?

[Mark Borok]

Within the bounds of the "shorter" genre, that seems fair, no?

Yes, it's fair, and of course you did link to the original article. However, in the larger context it makes it seem as if liberals are unanimously happy with the decision.

(I don't agree with Atrios, I believe in reasonable uses of eminent domain, but I would give up even the reasonable uses if it would prevent abuse. So I think this decision was the worse, not the better of two evils.)

On the liberal side the "property rights" movement seems to be viewed as a way to get rid of environmental and safety regulations. I think those are not related to eminent domain.

[mudfoot]

Matt number 2 wrote:
Im the Matt who loves the phrase zillion pound shithammer, and, as a perhaps permenantly ex-Dem, who attempts to translate the mindset in the next post.

It's actually "million pound shithammer" -- from HST's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail". That's a good phrase.

[Troy]

Oh yeah,

I still have the 1st amendment. Yeah! At least I can still bitch while sleeping under a bridge because that damn Hooters brought in more taxes.

[Rhywun]

(The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

They got a sweet deal on the land too. Who says you have to fairly compensated for the land you need?!

PS. Now that the Times isn't on Times Square anymore, can we let it revert to its proper name, Longacre Square??

[6Gun]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Justin]

I suspect one of the reasons that lefty court watchers are not objecting to the ruling is that they envision using the tool enabled by this precedent to achieve other "public purpose" objectives.

Say for instance that strip mall or big box store is an insult to their sensibility. They no longer have to buy out the property owner. The local governing body merely needs to be convinced the greater "public purpose" is served by razing it an erecting tenement housing or a battered womens shelter or planting grass and trees.

[Rhywun]

er... make that, "who says you should have to fairly compensate the OWNER..."

[drooling richard]

So for now local government is fully empowered to decide how private property is used within it jurisdiction. And presently, the nationalist elephant will have his truck in the tent with a new amendment to the Constitution empowering government to crack down on dissidents.

Liberalism got kicked in the balls this week.

[Green Hornet]

There may be a legal stratagem lurking here. Since redevelopment use falls mainly on the poor and minorities, disparate impact may be a vehicle for attacking particular abuses.

[6Gun]

A couple obversations:

1. This is a terrible event, but it'll spike on the outrage radar and then quietly slip into obscurity to do it's damage as part of the constant erosion of rights we see everywhere.

2. Pursuant #1, fewer than half of those concerned -- regardless of political orientation -- will bother to right their capitol.

And with that 50% constituting maybe 1% of the Apathetic States of America, there you go.

Personally I derive great pleasure ripping my Dim senator's face off by jamming his overt, butt-licking mendacity back in his face. He's schooled in the rhetorical Clintonesque style, so this is no great feat, but there is satisfaction there, even if our masters appear utterly deaf to anything shy of a media landslide.

[Matt number 2]

mudfoot, I thought I sensed a hint of the Gonzo in Welch's commentary. Thanks for the update.

[6Gun]

will bother to right their capitol.

Whoa, Freudian. Meant write, of course...

[theCoach]

I am pretty firmly in the Matthew Yglesias camp on this one. Does someone really think that we are now going to become the Soviet Union because of this ruling?

Personally, I think the govt should have this power for a broad public use, but as a local government official I would be wary of using it. Other local control may vary.
I think the place to put the energy is into avoiding corruption of the process, and to ensure that compensation justly accounts for present value plus the fact that the person was unwilling to sell (and I think we could come up with ways of mitigating both people's unwillingness to sell, and eminent domain low-balling. But as Yglesias says, this will change about nothing from the status quo.

[smacky]

Say for instance that strip mall or big box store is an insult to their sensibility. They no longer have to buy out the property owner. The local governing body merely needs to be convinced the greater "public purpose" is served by razing it an erecting tenement housing or a battered womens shelter or planting grass and trees.

Forget nanny statism....this sounds like "Soccer Mom" statism or "Martha Stewart Home Living" statism...the state is acting like the US is one big garden, to be organized to their liking.

[Swede]

I would think that this gives us an even greater impetus to really focus on electing libertarians to local controlling political bodies. If the two statist parties insist on stripping us of our rights, then we need to stand up and fight back by marketing our platform of true small government and strong individual rights in such a fashion that it becomes more understandable to the general electorate. As of right now, most people are not convinced of our arguments and positions. So, we need to market our platform the way the statists have so that more people can see why we have our ideals and how implenting those ideals into public policy can benefit everybody. Then we can raise more funds and run more candidates for office and start winning some damn elections! If all communities had a couple Ron Pauls in their city council, we would be able to put a stop to a lot of statist plans.

[Russ D]

theCoach,

Does someone really think that we are now going to become the Soviet Union because of this ruling?

Liberties aren't trampled on in one fell swoop, they're chipped away piece by piece.

[alkali]

Assume the following:

1. A (small-d) democratically elected state or local government.

2. That state/local government wants to take a parcel of private property for some use (highway, industrial development, whatever).

3. The state/local government is paying market price for the property.

Under what circumstances should a federal court step in to block the state/local government from making that eminent domain purchase?

The Kelo decision says, essentially, pretty much never.

I am not sure what I think of the decision but it has this much going for it: it leaves the decisions (and accountability) regarding use of the eminent domain power with the state and local governments who exercise it. Clearly, "state and local governments can exercise eminent domain only if doing so doesn't offend the sensibilities of the local federal judge" is not a good alternative rule.

Suffice it to say that for all the heated criticism of this decision, I am not very clear on what the alternative rule could be, or what the constitutional basis for the alternative rule might be.

(Preemptive note: if you think that state and local governments should never exercise eminent domain power, that's fine, but there's no basis in the constitution for that point of view, and the Supreme Court couldn't have ruled that way if it wanted to.)

[The Real Bill]

So-called liberals have many redeeming qualities, but leftists (or rightist) authoritarians are truly evil. Period. If every authoritarian were to die tomorrow, I dance and dance and dance on their mass grave in a state of mystical joy.

[The Real Bill]

s/b "I'd dance ..."

[theCoach]

The Real Bill, I think that is how Lenin came to his conclusions.

[joe]

I think it goes to show just how counterproductive the extreme, absolutist positions adopted by the libertarian right on this issue have been. Even the people, like Atrios, who have been blogging about what a horrible thing New London is doing are unwilling to turn their back on you people, because of your eagerness to throw babies out with bathwater.

[mudfoot]

theCoach--do you actually believe that your position as an elected official entitles you to choose the "best" private owners of any given piece of property? That's essentially what the Supreme Court just affirmed your ability to do.

[Legate Damar]

So in the past 2 weeks, we've learned:

The government can take our personal property for the purposes of more fruitful (to tax collectors) economic activity...

AND

Everything is an economic activity...

THEN

The government could force us to donate blood?

[Stretch]

I hardly think supporting limits on the use of ED is an extreme position. Saying that "public use" does not include the mere potential for higher tax revenues does not seem absolutist.

[Snidely Whipslash III]

I gotta say this has tipped me over from idealist to greedy selfish bastard.

Do you know how cheaply you can buy a local politician? A US sentor costs many thousands of dollars, but a thousand bucks to a town coucil member will make you his best backer! I think I'm going to about 10K around the council and get my loser neighbor evicted from the home his grandfather bought, because I want more land for a pool and a big garage. What could he do, he's just some shmoo working in a gas station, and I could defiantely afford a few hundred a year more in taxes than this guy is paying. Good thing I went to college on government grants and loans and then defaulted!

It's going to be a great summer!

[Ira Weatheral]

theCoach, I'm a pretty mellow guy, but if you're views are on a continum with RealBill's, I must say this week's rulings are pushing me over to Bill's side.

Unless I run for office and win!

[kmw]

"...unwilling to turn their back on you people, because of your eagerness to throw babies out with bathwater."

Says the king from on high.

Your points might be better received if they weren't underlined by constant condescension.

[6Gun]

Personally, I think the govt should have this power for a broad public use, but as a local government official I would be wary of using it. Other local control may vary. I think the place to put the energy is into avoiding corruption of the process, and to ensure that compensation justly accounts for present value plus the fact that the person was unwilling to sell (and I think we could come up with ways of mitigating both people's unwillingness to sell, and eminent domain low-balling. But as Yglesias says, this will change about nothing from the status quo.

Read:

1. Municipalities should be benevolent but may not be.

2. Corruption is possible, and needs to be dealt with, but I'm not sure how.

3. Just compensation, despite said avenues for corruption, is required, but again, I'm not saying how.

4. I admit emotional distress and propose some to-be-determined means of alieviating it.

5. I don't feel an apparent need to discuss constitutional protections so as to achieve these ideals.

6. But don't worry. Why can't we all just get along?

[6Gun]

Your points might be better received if they weren't underlined by constant condescension.

Points?

[kmw]

6Gun,

Well, I admit I disagree with most of Joe's arguments, but it might be more like a discussion if he'd lose the air of superiority.

Just pointing out that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

[6Gun]

Understood, kmr. I just bristle at conclusions based on one's own utterly mindless assertions.

[metalgrid]

"...unwilling to turn their back on you people, because of your eagerness to throw babies out with bathwater."

So, umm, we want to stop government from taking a poor person's house and giving it to the rich people who can bribe government officials, and we're the ones eager to throw babies out?

[Eric the .5b]

I think it goes to show just how counterproductive the extreme, absolutist positions adopted by the libertarian right on this issue have been. Even the people, like Atrios, who have been blogging about what a horrible thing New London is doing are unwilling to turn their back on you people, because of your eagerness to throw babies out with bathwater.

Niiice. So, you and some like-minded liberals like this ridiculous decision because us few crazy libertarians scare you with talk of "principles" and "constitutional protections" and "property rights"? Then you doubly deserve the shock and disgust pretty many other liberals (and other points on the political spectrum) are showing in response to this sort of apologism.

I mean, c'mon. "unwilling to turn their back on you people" When liberals are afraid of the vast, terrifying power of libertarians, they've officially lost their minds. Something about the feebleminded jumping out of windows comes to mind...

[kmw]

And I've never been on a discussion board with any of my local city employees, so for all I know Joe is a lot more open than they are.

But there's just something dark and sinister about a city planner with a wedgie fetish.

[Eric the .5b]

"many" for "pretty many" on that last post...

[joe]

kmw, I give it as good as I get it, and I'm not about to stop.

Stretch, "I hardly think supporting limits on the use of ED is an extreme position. Saying that "public use" does not include the mere potential for higher tax revenues does not seem absolutist."

First, the extreme position is not the statement that there should be limits - of course they should - but where those limits are proposed to be drawn.

Second, "the mere potential for higher tax revenues" was not the justification that the court found valid. Properties may be taken as part of a redevelopment plan. The hysterics wailing "now they can take anyone's house for a McDonald's" are, well, being hysterical.

Where I disagree with the court is the majority's decision to leave the field wide open, and declare that any plan brought forward from a municipality sould be treated with "great deference." The obvious hanky-panky behind New London's actions suggests to me that we need some oversight to differentiate between legitimate plans, incompetant plans, and fig leafs.

[R C Dean]

I still have the 1st amendment.

Wrong. Google McCain-Feingold, and weep for the death of the constitutional republic under which we used to live.

[joe]

metalgrid, "So, umm, we want to stop government from taking a poor person's house and giving it to the rich people who can bribe government officials, and we're the ones eager to throw babies out?"

I agree, "your side" is not the only one guilty of baby-throwing here. This is a bad case.

[Stevo Darkly]

Oops, I probably wouldn't have come down on joe if I'd known 3 or 4 other people would beat me to it, and then joe give a little bit. No pile-on intended.

[Eric the .5b]

Ehn, the little mother-insulter can take it, Stevo.

[metalgrid]

Funnily enough, the left digs up dirt like this: http://www.mahablog.com/2005.06.19_arch.html#1119614321656

And yet, they still don't realize how doomed they are by the law of unintended consequences each time they infringe on individual liberty.

[ed]

Not that it matters anymore, but I left off the last sentence because it was used here in the post already. Also, the "shorter" Atrios should be:

This sucks, but it could be worse.

[ed]

Is it my fault he's a glass half full kind of guy?

[Eric the .5b]

Is it my fault he's a glass half full kind of guy?

Yes. Go sit in the ashes!

[James]

If we'd all chain ourselves to the desks in the managers' offices of these private businesses, screaming PUBLIC LAND!, PUBLIC LAND! Would any NYT reporters cover it?

[passingthru]

Perhaps the Bill of Rights is being eroded because We the People have refused to exercise our Second Amendment right.

[Rhywun]

The obvious hanky-panky behind New London's actions suggests to me that we need some oversight to differentiate between legitimate plans, incompetant plans, and fig leafs.

How about a definition of "public use" which allows ED for highways and power lines, but not shopping centers and luxury condos? Sounds pretty simple to me. And to those who say we need this tool to combat "blighted" neighborhoods, go back and read your Jane Jacobs. There are ways to improve neighborhoods that don't involve bulldozing and rebuilding.

[Happy Jack]

This is a bad case. Why?

The precedents point in this direction, and how would SCOTUS decide what is a legitimate plan and what is incompetent?

If a plan is incompetent, the locals can always decide to throw the pols out.

[Eric the .5b]

Oh, God, don't get Joe started on the blight. I've, for one, had enough of the "this is very, very, very rare and almost never happens but if you don't give us this power cities and puppies everywhere will die by tomorrow morning!" spiel.

[Rhywun]

don't get Joe started on the blight

Oops, sorry 🙂

[Eric the .5b]

How about a definition of "public use" which allows ED for highways and power lines, but not shopping centers and luxury condos? Sounds pretty simple to me.

Because it sounds like crazy, radical right-wing thinkin' to Kos, Yglesias, and Joe...

[kmw]

kmw, I give it as good as I get it, and I'm not about to stop.

That may be true, but as far as I can tell, you're the only poster on here that is completely un-anonymous. I guess I just don't have the brass stones to give out shit when people know where I work. Either you're a better man, or just more fatuous. I'm not sure which.

[Steve]

To get somewhat back on topic, that comment in the "update" is typical Yglesias, the smug prick. He never addresses any libertarian argument on its merits, just waves his arms and says, "but they're libertarians! Their worldview is morally bankrupt! They can't be right!"

It's sad, because for a statist, Yglesias actually shows some understanding of libertarian thought. Maybe that's why he knows better than to accurately describe it to his readers.

[aahpat (Pat Rogers)]

"mainstream liberalism is sicker than I thought."

A sick joke.

LOL!

The right wing has successfully shoved the liberals of America to the right for so damned long that there is no such a thing as a liberal. I had a guy last week at a blog called the Moderate Voice, rationalizing anti U.N. John Birch Society rhetoric as moderate. He declared himself moderate to leftist. What a joke.

Every time the right wing goes into one of these shoving matches over some liberal rhetoric, like what happened to Sen. Durbin last week, the liberals cave in and scamper further to the right. John Kerry, the career drug warrior, poses himself as moderate while supporting laws that mass disenfranchise nonconformists and minorities. While supporting a wholly unsupportable and illegal war.

Main stream liberalism died in the 1980's. Mugged in an alley by the drug war. America today has right wing Democrats and extreme right wing Republicans to represent us. All others are demonized, marginalized or simply disenfranchised out of the electoral politics of America.

[Eric the .5b]

True enough, Steve. Yglesias basically walks up to angriest, most dismissive libertarian take on the decision and joyfully embraces it as exactly why he wants it. Crack those little eggshells, because the government simply must have morrr powrrr.

[Stevo Darkly]

The right wing has successfully shoved the liberals of America to the right for so damned long that there is no such a thing as a liberal.

Aah-hahaha! That explains why liberals holding left-of-center views are so hard to find nowadays (unless I leave my office or apartment).

[Rimfax]

I think that the key here for the subset of liberals who support this decision is that the new owners are nameless developers selected by the honorable representatives of the city, not Walmart; and that the old owners are middle class homeowners, not self-evidently "disadvantaged".

I also think that Reason should keep a choice quotes file and that it should include "...[T]here's just something dark and sinister about a city planner with a wedgie fetish." (by kmw)

[RandyAyn]

From Daily Brickbat:

The Olympic Ideal (6/22)
China has razed thousands of homes, restaurants and small shops in Beijing to "beautify" the city before it hosts the 2008 Olympics. When restaurateur Ye Guozhu sought permission to protest the forced evictions of some 300,000 people, he was arrested for disturbing the social order, convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. His family hasn't seen or heard from him in the six months since. When they tried to file an appeal of his conviction, the court refused to accept it, saying Ye would have to sign the appeal himself'in person.

Just a matter of time, folks...

[Stretch]

First, the extreme position is not the statement that there should be limits - of course they should - but where those limits are proposed to be drawn.

I'm sorry, but what limits? Now, in addition to being able to take property for any possible official government uses (theoretically, public uses) they can take property for private uses. This decision effectively removed all limits.

Second, "the mere potential for higher tax revenues" was not the justification that the court found valid. Properties may be taken as part of a redevelopment plan. The hysterics wailing "now they can take anyone's house for a McDonald's" are, well, being hysterical.

Okay, so all local politicians have to do is claim that their scheme is part of a "redevelopment plan" and they've got the all clear, right? I don't disagree that some are hysterical over this, but that argument sounds strikingly similar to the "well, if you're not a terrorist, the Patriot Act will never affect you" line of reasoning. So, as long as I don't borrow the Koran from the local library and live in an already fully developed area, I'm safe from infringements on my personal liberty.

Honestly, Joe, I think in a few years you'll see that this loose an interpretation of ED is going to have a negative impact on the most vulnerable people. If a private developer wants to purchase land in order to make a profit, they can do so. Some owners might refuse to sell immediately, or demand above market rates...so be it, that's business. But to have government officials seize land, pay you want they want for it, and then give it to those same private developers in return for some cash...well, that's just too much for me.

I can't help but to feel that if the Justices were reversed on their positions, you would argue as fervently that this was a sure sign that conservatives were nothing but a bunch of corporate lackies. Maybe I'm wrong about that, because surely you didn't agree with the Raich decision.

[mu]

Sha-la-la-la Sha-la-la-la-la-la Sha-la-la-la-la-la

Ships are docking planes are landing
A never ending supply

No more narco no more gangster
Conservatives can cry

I took the law and threw it away
'Cause there's nothing wrong it's just for play
There's no law, no law any more
I want to steal from the...

----

Waitaminute

[wataazu]

They agree with the ruling because it uses the phrase "public interest" and therefore it is good. They wouldn't want to look like they don't care deeply for all people. Their looks and image are what's important here (fa-q and your 'property', nazi).

They don't realize that it can happen to them, even though they're perfect loving creatures with nothing but concern for their fellow humans. The guy that owns the Podunk Beavers basketball team isn't going to care how nice they are when he has their communes bulldozed so he can have a few more luxury boxes in his new state of the art stadium.

Feeble.

[Judy (the one and only)]

Could all of the Matts commenting here please number yourselves so we can keep track (Matt1,Matt2, etc.) Thank you.

[Rhywun]

That fucker Bruce Ratner is on my TV right now gleefully rubbing his hands at the prospect of evicting Brooklynites for his basketball palace.

In that 8.2 million square feet, you're going to see a new basketball arena, designed by Frank Gehry, the rest commercial real estate and housing. What you'll see there is not typical Brooklyn brownstones. There's a skyline to this. This is the future. This is Robert Moses. This is Levittown.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/n_9393/

Oh dear God.... What vision!

[Jason]

When liberals are afraid of the vast, terrifying power of libertarians, they've officially lost their minds.

LOL - That was brilliant!

[kwais]

Seth,
The republicans when they are out of power, are all about limiting the power of government. Even when they are in power some of them are still about limiting the power of govt.

Now if we could only get liberals to see the virtue of wanting to limit the power of govt, even if they only want to do such when they are out of power.

I suspect that maybe one of the reasons that they don't like the idea of limiting the power of govt, is that they see the election of GW as a freakish thing that will be corrected in the next election. In the next election they think, the right wingers will not be able to fool the voters with their trickery anymore. Gore and Kerry will be redeemed.

[joe]

The decision doesn't give "our nation's city halls...the ability to seize your property any time they thought a new owner could produce more sales-tax revenue."

Do you all keep making this misreading of the decision deliberately, or are you still hysterical?

[joe]

You know, Matt, you could have told your readers that Atrios was putting up outraged posts about this case months ago. You could have told them that the title of his post was A Slightly Contrarian Take on Kelo. You could have told them that he described his take as "contrarian" because of all of the outrage the case has generated among his left wing comment community.

But I guess that wouldn't fit in with the story arc you want.

[Steve]

joe, that's exactly what it does, because the majority decision says we should defer to cities and states as to their definition of "economic development." It's certainly possible for a city to call something an "economic development plan" when all it does is replace current occupants with people who would pay more taxes. As long as the local govt says they're being reasonable, who's the Supreme Court to question their motives? That's the logic of this decision.

[rob]

I seem to remember using the eminent domain scene at the beginning of HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy during a previous argument over eminent domain with joe.

It's sad to watch a guy who claims he wants what's best for the people he city plans for arguing for expensive mass transit solutions in a misguided attempt to ensure that there are urban areas to live in where people don't need to own a car (they just pass the expense on to everyone else) and that eminent domain is really a good thing because it lets bureaucratic "experts" determine how best to use what used to belong to you before they ran you off your property.

joe says this ruling is being mis-read here. Maybe I am mis-reading it, but it looks like a clear win for those city planners, city council-members and local "land-use" experts/bureaucrats - other folks with jobs like joe's - who want local gov't to have the ability to take property from its citizens as long as they think it's important to do so and can rationalize it to themselves.

[joe]

Steve,

There's two points to distinguish here. There's the legal justification for the takings, which is not based on Future Use being more profitable than Current Use, but on the implementation of a plan. That's the point I was making.

Then there's the standards (or rather, complete lack thereof from this court) for distinguishing between a legitimate plan and a fig leaf. That's the point you were making.

[joe]

For all of you wailing about the evil liberals, who don't care about the little guy...

Did anybody notice that the IJ didn't make any argument involving due process, to challenge the City of New London's redevelopment plan on the merits, or the process used to produce the plan? Of course not - making a due process claim would be an admission that, in fact, there exists a due process for redevelopment takings. And make no mistake, the libertarian/property rights Institute for Justice would absolutely prefer to see these properties taken than to see that happen.

Ditto with equal protection - there's a ton of room to push the legal enveloppe on economic status as an equal protection issue of concern. From the IJ? Nada.

These are also potentially promising avenues for Congress to go down, to protect lower and middle income people from abusive redevelopment plans. So, show of hands, who's abiding concern for people like Suzette Kelo, and the children, leads them to support the crafting of these protetions by either the courts, or by Congress?

[LisaMarie]

Ok, so if you're right basically the IJ took a high profile case and then deliberately sabotaged by making losing arguments when winning ones were lying around everywhere. That aside, maybe I'm missing something. If the government can exercise eminent domain power at any time, for anything they define as public use, and the only question is how much money they're going to pay you for your property, what due process recourse do you have? As for protecting people from "abusive" redevelopment plans, how can you define abusive when eminent domain can be exercised for practically any reason? How do you get courts or Congress to protect people? The court has basically said that eminent domain can be used for anything. How are the courts going to protect anybody? How are the same legislative bodies that take contributions from developers going to craft protection for people from eminent domain abuse? Hoping the government will protect people from the government taking their homes seems a little naive.
Incidentally, I believe that liberals care about people a great deal. It's just that many liberals I encounter define caring about people as agreeing with every viewpoint they personally hold, which are unquestionably right, even if they can't explain why. If you disagree with a liberal of this stripe, by definition you're an asshole who doesn't care about anyone. Surely we can have more productive discourse than that.

[Miriam]

Oh, I don't know, LisaMarie. Most discourse isn't productive. As the French philosopher Camus once said, "The weak talk about sex; the strong enjoy it." Most of the babbling that goes on here as eleswhere is pretty meaningless. While we're talking, the strong -- in government and in the private sector -- are busy actually srewing people. If we call each other assholes from time to time, what does it matter? It has the ring of truth at least.

[joe]

Lisa Marie,

"If the government can exercise eminent domain power at any time, for anything they define as public use, and the only question is how much money they're going to pay you for your property, what due process recourse do you have?" The government CAN'T exercise ED any time for anything they define as public use. The majority pointed to the existence of an adopted redevelopment plan as determinative to whether the takings were being done for a public purpose or not. You argue due process by going after the plan. I, as a city planner, have no problem with the idea that someone above the level of a city council could nix a plan - in fact, I'd welcome it, as it would give me some hand if I ever have to tell a city council or mayor with a bad "edifice complex" that his scheme is a load of crap, and won't stand up.

"How are the same legislative bodies that take contributions from developers going to craft protection for people from eminent domain abuse?" You don't think the people who drew up the Constitution in the first place had lucrative personal and professional relationships with the big money interests whose power they were limiting or protecting? Libertarians love this argument, but it goes nowhere. Did the actions of the cops in the Rodney King video demonstate that all police forces need to be disbanded? Of-bloody-course not! You fight corruption, by fighting corruption.

"Hoping the government will protect people from the government taking their homes seems a little naive." Our government(s) put checks on our government(s) all the time. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches check each other, and the federal, state, and local governments check each other.

"It's just that many liberals I encounter define caring about people as agreeing with every viewpoint they personally hold, which are unquestionably right, even if they can't explain why." As oppose to libertarians, who never define intelligence, reasonableness, or respect in terms of conformance to their preferred policy outcomes? Or to, say, a libertoid blogger who hurls accusations of "not caring about the little guy" at everyone who doesn't subscribe to a theory of Eminent Domain jurisprudence that brings about the outcome he wanted in a particular case?

It's a human failing. People feel strongly about these things. Decent people who want to protect the discourse try to set those presumptions aside, rather than giving them free reign when it's politically expedient to demonize a certain segment of the political spectrum.

[Miriam]

Joe:

I think you've wandered into the temple without a clue about the doctrine that governs the ritual. Are you under the impression that this is a debate or something? Get on the right page in the hymnal.

[Eric the .5b]

Well, the clue that Joe really needs to get is that absolutely no one, except maybe people who work in urban planning, is remotely impressed with the "restriction" that government needs to have a real, gosh-darn written plan in order to justify taking your house.

Plans are cheap for cities, fighting city hall is expensive for the people city hall will target.

[Miriam]

Eric:

Approach the altar for your blessing.

[zach]

joe,

"Hoping the government will protect people from the government taking their homes seems a little naive." Our government(s) put checks on our government(s) all the time. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches check each other, and the federal, state, and local governments check each other.

the argument more accurately is that hoping the local executive government will protect people from the local executive government is a little naive. which it is.

[joe]

So none of you bleeding heart libertarian friends of the working man are going to step up, and come out for equal protection or due process protections against government takings? None of you?

What, do you all hate poor people? Or is it maybe possible that you have principled opinions about proper jurisprudence and politics, that you aren't willing to see violated just to get an outcome that you want for a working-class plaintiff? Here's a newsflash, you suddely silent ranks of the self righteous - me too.

[zach]

okay... the difference is, you're under the impression that the existing protections are adequate. are you saying it's against your principles to disagree with The Way Things Are Done?

"suddenly silent ranks of the self righteous"... relax buddy, it's a monday afternoon.

[Eric the .5b]

Joe,

So none of you bleeding heart libertarian friends of the working man are going to step up, and come out for equal protection or due process protections against government takings? None of you?

I'm happy to. I'm not familiar with those details of the case, but I'm not remotely surprised at your suggestion that New London was violating even more rights of the plaintiffs.

[theCoach]

Just to cleanup a mistake (a long dead thread by now I am sure),
"Personally, I think the govt should have this power for a broad public use, but as a local government official I would be wary of using it."

When I said this, it was not my intention to indicate, as the text does, that I was a local official. That should read something more like "... if I were a local govt official..."