I'm Pretty Sure I'm Upset

At yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on eminent domain abuse, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) went out on a limb by suggesting he sympathized with Americans whose property is taken in the name of economic development. "I'm probably one of the millions of Americans who are distressed," he said. He added, "Or it could be gas from the burrito I had for lunch."

Comments

[Smalls]

Did anyone read the article? I'm confused:

Mr. Perez said that if Congress went too far in curbing eminent domain, "in some of our poorest communities, I believe that we would have fewer people becoming homeowners, which means fewer participants in the administration's concept of an ownership society."

How does curbing eminent domain encourage less home ownership?

[Phil]

I guess he must mean that without the ability to take other peoples' property, developers won't build homes at all in those communities. But that makes little sense, since the homes built in those kinds of takings are rarely if ever affordable by the poorest residents.

[drf]

lehey is a hypocritical pig fucker.

he was gung ho post oklahoma city and then had the "balls" to claim he was worried about civil liberties post patriot.

Gotta love expressing opinion, while it's still legal.

[Smalls]

I'm never a fan of new laws....but maybe we should pass one requiring a minimum IQ for our representatives......or at least a prerequisite for an economics course;)

[Dave Straub]

Smalls: I'm not sure if this is germane to every community, but around here, the city will condemn abandoned or severely neglected properties and turn them over to a redevelopment agency. Then the redevelopment agency will sell the houses, with a minimum of repairs, to low-income folks at extremely low prices (we're talking a few thousand dollars in most cases).

Not saying this is right or wrong, just explaining what it might mean.

[Smalls]

Thanks Dave, but now my post isn't as funny.

[Number 6]

Dave Straub- I see your point, but post-Kelo, no one is talking about condeming the crumbling building in a weed-choked lot. The abuses that some claim they are trying to limit have more to do with stealing people's homes and businesses.

[theOneState]

http://www.nlc.org/content/Files/PFRtestimonyPerez.pdf

"By creating economic growth, these development projects provide the City with the increased capital it needs to continue providing affordable homeownership opportunities for Hartford residents."

He also suggests that by using eminent domain properly he's created a better city which leads to more people wanting to live there.

Mostly, though, he just thinks he's a kick-ass mayor.

[Evan Williams]

Dave,

That's one thing; but Perez makes a logical leap from homeowners, like in Kelo v London, to run-down ghettos. It's a slippery-slope fallacy: "if we prohibit wholesale theft like the New London case, the next thing you know, we won't be able to renovate crumbling ghettos!"

[R C Dean]

"By creating economic growth, these development projects provide the City with the increased capital it needs to continue providing affordable homeownership opportunities for Hartford residents."

So - we take your house, so we can raise taxes, so we can accumulate capital, so we can make you a loan, to buy a house.

Everybody clear on that?

[smalls]

theOneState,
Thanks for the link. I especially like the part where he says:

No locally-elected official whom I know would use eminent domain to undermine the integrity of or confidence in homeownership in his or her community.

Isn't it great to simply put our faith in the rectitude of our representatives.

[JD]

"I'm probably one of the millions of Americans who are distressed"? He doesn't know? Jeez, first President Bush doesn't know if he needs a bathroom break, now this guy doesn't know if he's distressed? (OK, so he probably meant "one of the probably millions..." but in that case, he's not much of an orator.)

I think the general philosophy at work in the supporters of the Kelo decision, when it's not simply self-interest, is "All good things flow from the government." The believers won't ever phrase it literally that way, but if you look at the howls of outrage over Reagan's "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." and the frequent charges that Republicans want to "destroy government" leave little other possible conclusion. If all good things flow from the government, then anything that weakens the hand of government is weakening the side of good and right and apple pie and mom and rainbows, etc. It's that simple. Some folks have already cited this sort of reasoning - "If the feds don't have a free hand to do X, however outrageous X might seem, then they don't have a free hand to do Y."

Incidentally, checking out some Reagan quotes to make sure I had that one above correct, I'm quite impressed; I hadn't remembered that he talked such a good game, even if he didn't always quite walk the walk.

[Mike]

That's one thing; but Perez makes a logical leap from homeowners, like in Kelo v London, to run-down ghettos. It's a slippery-slope fallacy: "if we prohibit wholesale theft like the New London case, the next thing you know, we won't be able to renovate crumbling ghettos!"

I don't think it's a slippery-slope fallacy: it's an attempt to point out unintended (or intended, depending) consequences. If you ban ED entirely, he'd be right. If you ban it partially, he may or may not be, depending on the wording of the law -- and the interpretation by the courts. And isn't that how we got here in the first place?

[joe]

"How does curbing eminent domain encourage less home ownership?"

There's the situation David Straub explains. Then there is the potential for redeveloping obsolete commercial and industrial property into affordable residential units.

Number 6, "I see your point, but post-Kelo, no one is talking about condeming the crumbling building in a weed-choked lot. The abuses that some claim they are trying to limit have more to do with stealing people's homes and businesses." Actually, the Kelo ruling has fostered a very broad debate about condemnation, one that goes beyond the narrow question of economic development takings and "public purpose." In New Hampshire, for example, there is a lot of attention being paid to a school building program that has been carrying out unnecessary takings of homes, and then deciding against using the lots.

And you have to admit, Evan, the IJ and Reason Institute are certainly interested in leveraging this issue to make some much broader changes. Some slopes are slippery, and some parties are counting on that slipperiness.

[renter4ever]

The Kelo decision negates the positives for home ownership vs. renting. Since a home owner can be told he is no longer the owner of his home why take the added risk of home ownership. At least with a rental I'm not out any thing when the powers-that-be evict me from my home.

[Mike]

The Kelo decision negates the positives for home ownership vs. renting.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

[Dave Straub]

Number 6 and Evan Williams: I think that Mr. Perez committed a non sequitur of sorts in his testimony, if he was indeed talking about the sort of redevlopment program I described. And as I said, I come here to neither praise nor bury those programs.

Of course, I think they should be carried out by private concerns and without government involvement. Preaching to the choir, etc.

[joe]

Also, seeing how the major impediment to homeownership in most areas of the country is poverty, rather than prices or supply, Perez's comment would also point to the importance of redevelopment measures in drawing private investment, and thus jobs and wages, into depressed inner city areas.

[theOneState]

Yeah, this mayor does brag about creating thousands of construction jobs. Whoopee. And hundreds of others at the retail/convention center. (At one employee per 1000 square feet, how many houses would you need to knock down to create 20 new jobs?)

This mayor skimps on details from what I read. If you testify in front of the senate, you might consider backing up your claim that judicious stealing grows the economy with data and studies and respected economic analysis. Unless...

[joe]

That makes a lot of sense; in order to demonstrate that this redevelopment plan will create jobs, he has to show that all redevelopment plans create jobs. Or that taking land, per se, is an economic engine. Or something.

[poco]

OT: Renter, nor can they seize your house for your illegal activities/sales within. (Not you you. YKWIM.)

[MJ]

"I'm probably one of the millions of Americans who are distressed"? He doesn't know? Jeez, first President Bush doesn't know if he needs a bathroom break, now this guy doesn't know if he's distressed? (OK, so he probably meant "one of the probably millions..." but in that case, he's not much of an orator.)-JD

Since Leahy goes on to say that he does not know if he's distressed over ED or intestinal gas, I would say that he said that precisely as he meant it. In that case, he's not much of a Senator, but we knew that already.

[Tom]

Since Leahy goes on to say that he does not know if he's distressed over ED or intestinal gas, I would say that he said that precisely as he meant it.

Jacob made that part up.

[mudfoot]

joe -- you keep alluding to the IJ and slippery slopes. Please describe it.

Is it something along the lines of "if I'm not allowed to pour toxic sludge into the kindergartenerss reservoir of drinking water then next they'll be taking my shanty hut and building casinos on the land"?

Property rights absolutists seem to see things along those lines.

Or do you just like it when the stronger steal from the weaker.

Hmm...?