Election 2016

New York Values Are Infecting Campaign 2016

So a Manhattan real estate mogul meets a Brooklyn socialist, a well-heeled carpetbagger and a former NYC mayor in a bar….

|

This milkshake brings the boys to the yard…. ||| Fox
Fox

On a day when the political media will be salivating over the drama of Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly vs. Sean Hannity vs. Bill O'Reilly (or whatever the latest 6th Avenue dynamic is), I have an op-ed in the L.A. Times making the argument that well, maybe ol' Ted Cruz was right after all: There are too many New York values in this race. Excerpt:

Take eminent domain. Since the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. City of New London decision, governments have had constitutional cover not only to seize private property for public use — to build a school or freeway, for instance — but also to transfer land from one private owner to another for the "public good," a vague term that sometimes means replacing tenements with sports stadiums or luggage stores with luxury hotels.

The Republican Party has long opposed such transfers as contrary to free market principles; so do 4 out of 5 Americans. But in cheek-by-jowl Manhattan, the property rights of small homeowners and business people are like bugs on the windshield of the city's swashbuckling real estate developers and the ribbon-cutting politicians who enable them.

Bloomberg as mayor relied on eminent domain so much that he campaigned against the post-Kelo legislative backlash, warning that "You would never build any big thing any place in any big city in this country if you didn't have the power of eminent domain." Trump has said he supports Kelo "100%."

There's more on guns, surveillance, fracking, minimum wage, and so on. Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Judge Says Rolling Stone's Jackie Must Surrender Documents About Fake Rape

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Political and economic power concentrates in New York and DC, which in turn leads to more New Yorkers and DC-ers (?) rising with political and economic power. Since media focuses on the personalities in this area more and more to the detriment of people in the rest of the country.

    1. It’s “Washingtonians”, but yeah, agreed on all points. And I think you could extend it to include the whole northeast Megalopolis. I’ve lived here about all my life and it really is as if nowhere else in the country exists. The DC-NYC-Boston area kind of conspires with LA to produce media for national consumption that’s essentially local cultural stuff. It’s like they’re telling everyone inside jokes and then getting surprised when people from, say, Oklahoma don’t get it. It’s unfortunate that so much policy gets made in the DC echo chamber, because it ignores the values of huge swathes of the American citizenry who just happen to not live in this one, weird, hyper-concentrated area.

  2. Andrew Cuomo called Cruz’s NY values comments “un-American.” Cuomo’s 180 degree hypocrisy, in a 17 year old running for class president, would be enough to cause whiplash, let alone in an elected governor.
    “Who are they?” Cuomo said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show Friday, reports the New York Post.

    “Right-to-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay ? if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are,” he continued.

    Cuomo said his words don’t extend to moderate Republicans, such as those in the state Senate, who he believes “have a place in their state.”

    Further, Cuomo complained that Republicans with “extreme” view create an identity crisis for their own party, and give people more to worry about than himself or other Democrats.

    “Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” said Cuomo.

    http://www.teaparty.org/cuomo-…..ans-33287/

  3. So this carpetbagger from California is going to come to Big Apple and enjoy the benefits from all the public taking of private real estate and then tell us that New York values are not American values? I don’t know exactly what my criticism here is but since I can’t see what Welch is wearing this is all I got.

  4. Bloomberg said, “I don’t know why people carry guns.”

    Sheesh, Mike — ask your fucking bodyguards.

    1. He’s important. You’re not. Principals, dude.

  5. You need to read Charlie’s Murray’s book We the People. Kelo was nothing new. The issue of eminent domain was largely settled 50 years ago. And remember the politics in the wake of the Kelo decision? Lots of hot air. The “Liberty Hotel” taking of Souter’s NH home couldn’t even get on the ballot.

  6. Sure, but the eminent domain WE like, such as Keystone (at least Gillespie liked), is nothing but good, pure Midwestern values, right Matt?

    1. You spelled your name wrong, Jackass.

    2. No. Find another strawman.

      1. If you like your strawman, you can keep your strawman.

    3. Wow. My world view. You collapsed it.
      /sobs into pile of exhausted orphans

    4. do you know the difference between running a non explosive pipeline under the ground and taking someone’s home from them to build a shopping center ?

      evidentially not.

      1. Perfect. Thanks for defining the eminent domain libertarians like. Well done.

        1. Oh, look. How cute. The child that doesn’t understand principles and logic has managed to frame the issue in terms that it can understand: like and dislike.

          So cute.

      2. He’s right on this one. I have no particular problem with the pipeline, but I have a huge problem with using eminent domain. What does it matter if it’s underground and non-explosive? If a property owner doesn’t want it on their property, then the oil company needs to find a new route. Full stop.

        1. Or persuade the property owner by offering them more money.

        2. Eminent domain has no place in a free society, but Jack is strawmanning all over himself here. He’s basically saying a.) all writers featured in a magazine must agree on all points or else they’re all hypocrites, b.) using ED to grant an easement for an oil pipeline crossing multiple states is morally identical to evicting poor people so you can build a mall, and that c.) because other states practice eminent domain at all you can’t point out New York’s demonstrably egregious and frequent abuse of eminent domain.

          1. I’m not drawing on any moral equivalence at all. Just speaking about ED. But if you want to inject morality into the equation, have fun. Maybe you can tell us how much money the landowner has to have in his or her bank account before ED can be used.

          2. You say ED has no place… Then I take it you opposed Keystone. No argument then.

        3. Except eminent domain has nothing to do with denying the cross border permit to keystone. It may be a foreseeable consequence, but as I’ve been assured on other topics that would be two totally separate things, so you just have to fix ED.

          1. Trans Canada used ED because it couldn’t get all those Nebraska farmers to agree. They gave up, and then tried to use ED. Period. It would have been used if Obama didn’t stop it, regardless of the fact that he stopped it for other reasons.

            So here is my point…in regard to Matt…keystone was probably the most preeminent example of ED simply because of its notoriety. If you really wanted a cause c?l?bre about ED, there it was. But crickets from Matt about Keystone. I never saw him weigh in on Keystone, so we are left with Reasons support for it from Gillespie and Stossel.

            1. Which is a totally separate issue from State approval of the pipeline. Or are you making the case yet again that ends justify the means? Yes, yes you are.

              1. Enjoy your day, Skip!

    5. Whoa, stop the presses! Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie don’t share the same opinions about eminent domain!? GTFO!!! I guess that means all eminent domain must be the best thing ever!

      You know, I just made the switch to Chrome from Firefox and had forgotten that I installed the Reasonable extension some time ago. Now I’m unexpectedly faced with a difficult decision because of comments like yours…

      1. Just proving that eminent domain isn’t just a Mew York value (take a look, it didn’t run through NY), nor is it just a left wing value. Seems like libertarians (Nick is one, I think) make excuses for it just as easily.

        1. Stop being obtuse. “New York Value” is not that ED gets used, it’s what it gets used for. The article speaks of rather clear-cut situations where NYC believes “public use” and “OOOOOOH SHINY” are the same thing, and the major candidates all seem to agree.

          Keystone is a misleading example since there’s a legitimate argument to be made for ED both on principle (an oil pipeline is an infrastructure project which can have a public use even though it’s privately built, owned, and managed, to say nothing of the environmental benefits) and as a practical matter (the permitting process is so convoluted that it’s unlikely for one of this size and with its public profile to ever be built without some ED).

          1. Wrong. No citizen is able to use that pipeline, just the oil company. It’s totally different than a highway, where you can use it if you so choose.

            1. You mean the way not citizen can make use of the transmission lines required for your government coerced “green” energy? Funny, I don’t see you raising any concerns over that…

              1. There we go! We both agree that ED should not be used for wind, solar, and oil. Well done! You agree with me, right? Oh wait….Keystone.

                1. I would gladly trade keystone for those. You won’t.

          2. I don’t think Jackass is being obtuse. I think Jackass quite simply cannot comprehend the idea of making judgements on principle and practicality, rather than like and dislike. So it must frame issues in terms of like and dislike because that’s all its childish mind can understand. You might as well try to explain calculus to a toddler.

            1. Making judgements on practicality is exactly what I don’t want our politicians engaging in. On principles yes, and the principle here is that ED was to be used only for public use (until SCOTUS made up public purpose out of thin air). I would very much like the pipeline to be built, but that’s not the kind of project ED was designed for.

          3. How do you define an infrastructure project and why does that matter? What is the public use of the pipeline? (Public purpose yes, but public use?) Why does it matter that there are environmental benefits? If a developer wants to replace low income oil-heated houses with expensive solar-heated houses, is that justification for using ED to acquire the older houses? Why does the difficulty of the permitting process matter? The permitting process for building a private golf course is onerous too. Should ED be allowed for that? I want the pipeline built, but the only justifications I’m seeing for using ED for it is that this project is bigger, harder, etc.

        2. That isn’t what you’ve proven at all, but regardless, the point isn’t that only New York exercises eminent domain, but that New York provides an especially egregious example of eminent domain abuse. I’ll stipulate that the Institute for Justice is not an unbiased source, but this PDF they published on NY eminent domain abuse cites data from neutral sources to make the point. However you feel about the Keystone Pipeline you surely can’t believe it’s the moral equivalent of forcibly evicting scores of lower-income residents on the basis of cynically cursory judicial proceedings for the dubious public good of convention centers and strip malls.

          1. What did I say? That there is eminent domain being used outside of NY, so it’s hardly a NY value. And sadly, it’s often embraced by libertarians, not just liberals.

            Maybe you should te those farmers in Nebraska who fought and fought against ED for keystone that it’s not quite the same as those poor people in NY.

            1. Okay, in a free and civilized society, the use of eminent domain is ALWAYS wrong.

              We shouldn’t forget that the 5th amendment does not authorize the taking of private property without the consent of the owner.

              Structurally, it just does not make sense to argue that the state has the right to take your property for public use without your consent given that the eminent domain language is contained in the BORs. The Decalogue is not about grants of power to the government; to the contrary, the BORs are a restriction upon, a check on government power.

              1. Note, the language in the 5th does not state that private property can be taken without the owner’s consent. If the framers had intended that to be the case, why didn’t they so affirmatively?

                It is not answer that the phrase “eminent domain” was so universally accepted to mean the taking of private property without the owner’s consent at the time the BORs were penned. Jefferson thought it a terrible idea, one borne of continental princes and crown apologists.

                Given the lack of a specific, unambiguous command, the language must be construed against the projection of state power.

            2. See, the problem isn’t that you disagree with me, it’s that you’re either not interested in actually reading what I wrote or you’re deliberately ignoring it and doing a textbook strawman.

              In the Keystone XL case, they were asking the state to use eminent domain to grant them an easement to run the pipeline under private property, 90% of the owners of which voluntarily sold, by the way. In that case, the justification for ED usage was not just the general economic and environmental benefits to running a pipeline versus continuing to use rail and truck but that the three landowners refusing to sell could stop a project that would arguably increase employment in several states.

              Again, regardless of whether you approve of ED in the case of Keystone, you are being deliberately obtuse if you’re arguing that granting an easement across property is the same thing as making someone homeless. And again, as I see you haven’t bothered with the link, NY is the most egregious abuser of eminent domain, which is the argument being made by Welch.

              1. You’re just proving my point. ED was used elsewhere, not just NY, and libertarians like yourself are OK with it…what, as long as 90% of the people approved it? Those 10% should be forced to allow the easement?

                What private companies are OK to use ED? Just oil companies? Why? You like them?

                1. The only thing that has been proven here, Jackass, is that you’re too stupid or too dishonest to understand their arguments.

    6. Forgot to add that it’s not just Gillespie, but Stossel too.

      “Eminent domain can be WONDERFUL if it’s put to important public use, say, claiming land for highways, railroads or a PIPELINE.”

      You know, eminent domain for the private companies WE like. Just embracing those New York values, I guess.

      1. It’s not a matter of which companies you like, but of the nature of the taking. To have a reasonable property regime, access must be allowed in the form of such things as easements for people & things to cross property. It doesn’t vitiate the concept of property, it allows property to blossom by forbidding reduction to absurdity whereby someone effectively blockades someone else by surrounding them w property.

  7. Thanks for the nauseating alt-text, Welch. [sobs angrily]

  8. Oh no, how can a writer for a national magazine put down New York values?
    (clutches pearls)

  9. At a 2003 news conference, Bloomberg said, “I don’t know why people carry guns. Guns kill people.”

    You do carry a gun, you jerkoff. The fact that you’re rich and hire someone to do the dirty work for you doesn’t absolve you of your responsibility for it.

    1. It’s like someone saying they don’t kill animals because all their meat comes from the store.

  10. “You would never build any big thing any place in any big city in this country if you didn’t have the power of eminent domain.”

    So what? Those “big things” you speak of don’t benefit anybody but political whores and their johns.

    1. “You would never build any big thing any place in any big city in this country if you didn’t have the power of eminent domain.”

      Right, like malls, convention centers, newer, more expensive houses, stuff like that’s totally impossible to build without forcibly evicting the people who already live there. Just ask the Romans, they had eminent domain down to a science.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.