http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:07:34 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62093 Fifth Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:55:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62093 It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii's housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the "king" and we lease it until the "king" decides that it has a better use for it? They don't call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property. The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases. What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government "interference" in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit. The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government's place to take it away and give it to others. This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can't too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it's just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses. It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii’s housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the “king” and we lease it until the “king” decides that it has a better use for it? They don’t call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property. The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases. What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government “interference” in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit. The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government’s place to take it away and give it to others. This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can’t too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it’s just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62092 Fifth Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:54:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62092 It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii's housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the "king" and we lease it until the "king" decides that it has a better use for it? They don't call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property. The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases. What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government "interference" in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit. The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government's place to take it away and give it to others. This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can't too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it's just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses. It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii’s housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the “king” and we lease it until the “king” decides that it has a better use for it? They don’t call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property. The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases. What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government “interference” in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit. The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government’s place to take it away and give it to others. This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can’t too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it’s just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62091 Fifth Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:53:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62091 It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii's housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the "king" and we lease it until the "king" decides that it has a better use for it? They don't call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property. The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases. What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government "interference" in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit. The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government's place to take it away and give it to others. This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can't too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it's just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses. It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii’s housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the “king” and we lease it until the “king” decides that it has a better use for it? They don’t call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property. The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases. What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government “interference” in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit. The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government’s place to take it away and give it to others. This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can’t too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it’s just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62090 John Thacker Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:09:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62090 Even city manager run cities can have citizens' revolts. That happened in Durham, NC after the city and county governments decided to issue "bond-like objects" that weren't quite bonds in order to pay for a minor league baseball stadium, after a bond referendum had been defeated in a vote. People voted the wrong way, let's ignore it. Of course, they did this after the filing deadline, and there were only two Republicans to oppose the five incumbent Democrats on the County Commission. Still, we got two new Commissioners for a while. The odd thing about North Carolina and many of the Sunbelt states is that often the Republicans oppose these bond giveaways to corporations more than the Democrats. That's because the Democrats tend to be moderate/conservative types who work hand in glove with corporations and have been running the state government for years. The Republicans tend to favor lower overall tax rates and corporate tax rates, but no special payouts, whereas the Democrats tend to favor special money designed to attract certain companies. Even city manager run cities can have citizens’ revolts. That happened in Durham, NC after the city and county governments decided to issue “bond-like objects” that weren’t quite bonds in order to pay for a minor league baseball stadium, after a bond referendum had been defeated in a vote. People voted the wrong way, let’s ignore it. Of course, they did this after the filing deadline, and there were only two Republicans to oppose the five incumbent Democrats on the County Commission. Still, we got two new Commissioners for a while. The odd thing about North Carolina and many of the Sunbelt states is that often the Republicans oppose these bond giveaways to corporations more than the Democrats. That’s because the Democrats tend to be moderate/conservative types who work hand in glove with corporations and have been running the state government for years. The Republicans tend to favor lower overall tax rates and corporate tax rates, but no special payouts, whereas the Democrats tend to favor special money designed to attract certain companies.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62089 Bill Katz Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:26:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62089 The right of eminent domain has been abused for decades. There is, however, understanderable use for this concept when major public projects are needed in order to improve a locality. However, the misuse of this draconian measure, the confiscation of a person's property for less than public gain, is well documented. I know. This confiscation happened to my family in the 1960's in Hartford. Hartford Redevelopment proceeded to confiscate land under this status, the reasoning was to provide additional needed land to insure Underwood Typewriter Corporation's expansion. State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hartford. My father remained obstinate and as a result my family was forced to move by sheriff writ 2 weeks before Christmas in the dead of winter. Surfice to say, the Underwood Typewriter Co. moved during that period. Most of the land today, more than three decades later, remains fallow. At least some of the new ownership of this land fell into the hands of well known families of politicians. I would say this was dammed abuse of eminant domain. No freedom from tyranny here. What ever the motivations of the property owners of New London, be it holding out for increased compensation or not, they have a right to keep their land. Period. There is an old English tradition. Something that states the principle about a man's home still being his castle. The right of eminent domain has been abused for decades. There is, however, understanderable use for this concept when major public projects are needed in order to improve a locality. However, the misuse of this draconian measure, the confiscation of a person’s property for less than public gain, is well documented. I know. This confiscation happened to my family in the 1960’s in Hartford. Hartford Redevelopment proceeded to confiscate land under this status, the reasoning was to provide additional needed land to insure Underwood Typewriter Corporation’s expansion. State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hartford. My father remained obstinate and as a result my family was forced to move by sheriff writ 2 weeks before Christmas in the dead of winter. Surfice to say, the Underwood Typewriter Co. moved during that period. Most of the land today, more than three decades later, remains fallow. At least some of the new ownership of this land fell into the hands of well known families of politicians. I would say this was dammed abuse of eminant domain. No freedom from tyranny here. What ever the motivations of the property owners of New London, be it holding out for increased compensation or not, they have a right to keep their land. Period. There is an old English tradition. Something that states the principle about a man’s home still being his castle.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62088 phil Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:29:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62088 I agree that it is obvious, but I disagree that the Supreme Court will find it similarly obvious. I'm afraid Kelo will end up coming out the way Eldred v. Ashcroft did, with a lopsided and poorly reasoned 7-2 (or 6-2) result. I agree that it is obvious, but I disagree that the Supreme Court will find it similarly obvious. I’m afraid Kelo will end up coming out the way Eldred v. Ashcroft did, with a lopsided and poorly reasoned 7-2 (or 6-2) result.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62087 David Sucher Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:59:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62087 John Quiggin: Unless I completely misunderstand your hypo, your example is not parallel as the transaction you propose is in all aspects voluntary. Of course a seller can create restrictions on future buyers -- so long as those buyers accept them. Here we have sale compelled by government, not voluntary agreement to sell. In general: Eminent domain to transfer property from one owner to another private owner is simply not needed as a tool of urban redevelopment. We don't allow it in Washington State and we are doing fine. It's a cheap shortcut. John Quiggin: Unless I completely misunderstand your hypo, your example is not parallel as the transaction you propose is in all aspects voluntary. Of course a seller can create restrictions on future buyers—so long as those buyers accept them. Here we have sale compelled by government, not voluntary agreement to sell. In general: Eminent domain to transfer property from one owner to another private owner is simply not needed as a tool of urban redevelopment. We don’t allow it in Washington State and we are doing fine. It’s a cheap shortcut.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62086 C.J.Colucci Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:54:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62086 There's obviously a great deal of abuse in the eminent domain process, and a lot of projects don't smell much like "public uses," but there's a real problem with this lawsuit. The Supremes aren't going to set every trial court in the land loose to decide for itself whether every development project using eminent domain is a good idea. That would be an unadministrable judicial nightmare. That leaves 2 possible rules that judges could actually work with: (1) "public use" means "use by the public," e.g., a firehouse or City Hall or (2) "public use" means anything that might, with some modest degree of plausibility, be considered "useful" to the public. The second alternative is pretty much the law now. It permits considerable stupidity and abuse, but it allows genuinely beneficial projects through and is a rule courts can actually follow. Courts could actually follow the first rule, too, and it would prevent much supidity and abuse, but only at the cost of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Predicition? Things will stay much as they are. There’s obviously a great deal of abuse in the eminent domain process, and a lot of projects don’t smell much like “public uses,” but there’s a real problem with this lawsuit. The Supremes aren’t going to set every trial court in the land loose to decide for itself whether every development project using eminent domain is a good idea. That would be an unadministrable judicial nightmare. That leaves 2 possible rules that judges could actually work with: (1) “public use” means “use by the public,” e.g., a firehouse or City Hall or (2) “public use” means anything that might, with some modest degree of plausibility, be considered “useful” to the public. The second alternative is pretty much the law now. It permits considerable stupidity and abuse, but it allows genuinely beneficial projects through and is a rule courts can actually follow. Courts could actually follow the first rule, too, and it would prevent much supidity and abuse, but only at the cost of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Predicition? Things will stay much as they are.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62085 Lycan Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:29:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62085 All this has already happened in Richfield, Minnesota for new Best Buy Corp HQ. Richfield used to be a collection of working class single-family 50-yr old homes. The City condemned homes, businesses and auto dealerships, provided 'just' compensation and then gave the land to Best Buy for the spanking new HQ building. Much higher tax base. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/sw1.pdf All this has already happened in Richfield, Minnesota for new Best Buy Corp HQ. Richfield used to be a collection of working class single-family 50-yr old homes. The City condemned homes, businesses and auto dealerships, provided ‘just’ compensation and then gave the land to Best Buy for the spanking new HQ building. Much higher tax base. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/sw1.pdf

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62084 grannyinsanity Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:46:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62084 This is not the first time: http://www.saveourfarm.com/ When governments believe they can move people to service bigger money, it is only a matter of time until they start marching the disenfranchised into the ocean or something. This is not the first time: http://www.saveourfarm.com/ When governments believe they can move people to service bigger money, it is only a matter of time until they start marching the disenfranchised into the ocean or something.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62076 Syd Webb Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:19:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62076 <i>Syd, I think you’re confusing US city government with the British (and possibly Australian? IDK) system, which tends to be — gross generalization — more representative and more responsive, but also more politicized. <i>The US used to be the same way, but gross civic corruption in the late 19th and early 20th century produced a couple of waves of reform. These pushed many US municipalities towards city managers, appointed city boards, and other systems giving less (it was hoped) room for graft and cronyism. Very very very broadly speaking, municipal government in the US tends to be more professional and technocratic, less democratic and responsive, than elsewhere in the Anglosphere. This is especially so in smaller cities and suburbs.</i> Bizarre. This is yet another example of the American distrust of democracy, to retreat from it rather than reforming it when encountering problems. No wonder you still have an electoral college, and no national electoral commission, after all these years. When finding tendency, when encountring difficulties, to retreat from democract : And if there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the ee-vul councillors, : why enrich lawyers by fighting a court case? <i>I’m not sure I like you doing the ingenue thing, Syd. “If there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the town from passing the curfew for the darkies, then why enrich lawyers?”</i> Again, it just seems like US lawyer overuse syndrome - to resort to lawyers for something as simple as a political problem. As always, it’s another country and we should respect the fact they do things differently their. <i>The fact that voters don’t much object to something, doesn’t mean that something is constitutional and wise. <i>I’m with Belle here… the Court has the power to define public use, and IMO this ain’t it.</i> /What/ isn’t public use? You must have compulsory acquisitions to build roads? What if the road is build by a private corporation and they get to charge tolls? Is that public use? How does this differ from a shopping mall? </i></i> Syd, I think you’re confusing US city government with the British (and possibly Australian? IDK) system, which tends to be — gross generalization — more representative and more responsive, but also more politicized. The US used to be the same way, but gross civic corruption in the late 19th and early 20th century produced a couple of waves of reform. These pushed many US municipalities towards city managers, appointed city boards, and other systems giving less (it was hoped) room for graft and cronyism. Very very very broadly speaking, municipal government in the US tends to be more professional and technocratic, less democratic and responsive, than elsewhere in the Anglosphere. This is especially so in smaller cities and suburbs. Bizarre. This is yet another example of the American distrust of democracy, to retreat from it rather than reforming it when encountering problems. No wonder you still have an electoral college, and no national electoral commission, after all these years. When finding tendency, when encountring difficulties, to retreat from democract : And if there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the ee-vul councillors, : why enrich lawyers by fighting a court case? I’m not sure I like you doing the ingenue thing, Syd. “If there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the town from passing the curfew for the darkies, then why enrich lawyers?” Again, it just seems like US lawyer overuse syndrome – to resort to lawyers for something as simple as a political problem. As always, it’s another country and we should respect the fact they do things differently their. The fact that voters don’t much object to something, doesn’t mean that something is constitutional and wise. I’m with Belle here… the Court has the power to define public use, and IMO this ain’t it. /What/ isn’t public use? You must have compulsory acquisitions to build roads? What if the road is build by a private corporation and they get to charge tolls? Is that public use? How does this differ from a shopping mall?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62075 Syd Webb Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:12:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62075 <i>Syd, I think you’re confusing US city government with the British (and possibly Australian? IDK) system, which tends to be — gross generalization — more representative and more responsive, but also more politicized. <i>The US used to be the same way, but gross civic corruption in the late 19th and early 20th century produced a couple of waves of reform. These pushed many US municipalities towards city managers, appointed city boards, and other systems giving less (it was hoped) room for graft and cronyism. Very very very broadly speaking, municipal government in the US tends to be more professional and technocratic, less democratic and responsive, than elsewhere in the Anglosphere. This is especially so in smaller cities and suburbs.</i> Bizarre. This is yet another example of the American distrust of democracy, to retreat from it rather than reforming it when encountering problems. No wonder you still have an electoral college, and no national electoral commission, after all these years. : And if there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the ee-vul councillors, : why enrich lawyers by fighting a court case? <i>I’m not sure I like you doing the ingenue thing, Syd. “If there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the town from passing the curfew for the darkies, then why enrich lawyers?”</i> Again, it just seems like US lawyer overuse syndrome - to resort to lawyers for something as simple as a political problem. As always, it’s another country and we should respect the fact they do things differently there. <i>The fact that voters don’t much object to something, doesn’t mean that something is constitutional and wise. <i>I’m with Belle here… the Court has the power to define public use, and IMO this ain’t it.</i> /What/ isn’t public use? You must have compulsory acquisitions to build roads. What if the road is build by a private corporation and they get to charge tolls? Is that public use? How does this differ from a shopping mall? </i></i> Syd, I think you’re confusing US city government with the British (and possibly Australian? IDK) system, which tends to be — gross generalization — more representative and more responsive, but also more politicized. The US used to be the same way, but gross civic corruption in the late 19th and early 20th century produced a couple of waves of reform. These pushed many US municipalities towards city managers, appointed city boards, and other systems giving less (it was hoped) room for graft and cronyism. Very very very broadly speaking, municipal government in the US tends to be more professional and technocratic, less democratic and responsive, than elsewhere in the Anglosphere. This is especially so in smaller cities and suburbs. Bizarre. This is yet another example of the American distrust of democracy, to retreat from it rather than reforming it when encountering problems. No wonder you still have an electoral college, and no national electoral commission, after all these years. : And if there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the ee-vul councillors, : why enrich lawyers by fighting a court case? I’m not sure I like you doing the ingenue thing, Syd. “If there isn’t a majority of townsfolk to stop the town from passing the curfew for the darkies, then why enrich lawyers?” Again, it just seems like US lawyer overuse syndrome – to resort to lawyers for something as simple as a political problem. As always, it’s another country and we should respect the fact they do things differently there. The fact that voters don’t much object to something, doesn’t mean that something is constitutional and wise. I’m with Belle here… the Court has the power to define public use, and IMO this ain’t it. /What/ isn’t public use? You must have compulsory acquisitions to build roads. What if the road is build by a private corporation and they get to charge tolls? Is that public use? How does this differ from a shopping mall?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62065 John Quiggin Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:32:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62065 One question that interests me about this: Suppose that instead of a government exercising eminent domain, we had a private developer who had sold the land subject to a covenant which included words similar to the takings clause of the constitution, that is, reserving the right to resume land on just terms and for a public (or community) purpose. Which side would the Reason Foundation take in such a case? One question that interests me about this: Suppose that instead of a government exercising eminent domain, we had a private developer who had sold the land subject to a covenant which included words similar to the takings clause of the constitution, that is, reserving the right to resume land on just terms and for a public (or community) purpose. Which side would the Reason Foundation take in such a case?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62072 Phillip A Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:41:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62072 I live in CT and have been following this issue for the past couple of years. The most unusual aspect of the "eminent domain" asserted by the Town of New London and supported by the CT Supreme Court is that the alledged future benefit to the town is particularly insubstantial. The development for which the Ft Trumbull homes are to be sacrificed will be oriented to the tourist trade, with some portion of the area developed for up-scale housing (the area is near the New London historic district). The development would enjoy substantial real estate tax relief for a long time, so the Town had to claim the potential benefit of increased cash flow in the local economy would be significant enough to justify taking the Ft Trumbull homes. There is a true snake-oil, pie-in-the-sky aura to the whole development scheme, and if it seems crazy that the state supreme court has gone along with it, you should keep in mind that that court is largely the creation of our recently-departed, ethically-challenged kleptocratic Governor Rowland, who never met a developer he didn't like (as long as the gratuity was adequate). Phillip in CT I live in CT and have been following this issue for the past couple of years. The most unusual aspect of the “eminent domain” asserted by the Town of New London and supported by the CT Supreme Court is that the alledged future benefit to the town is particularly insubstantial. The development for which the Ft Trumbull homes are to be sacrificed will be oriented to the tourist trade, with some portion of the area developed for up-scale housing (the area is near the New London historic district). The development would enjoy substantial real estate tax relief for a long time, so the Town had to claim the potential benefit of increased cash flow in the local economy would be significant enough to justify taking the Ft Trumbull homes. There is a true snake-oil, pie-in-the-sky aura to the whole development scheme, and if it seems crazy that the state supreme court has gone along with it, you should keep in mind that that court is largely the creation of our recently-departed, ethically-challenged kleptocratic Governor Rowland, who never met a developer he didn’t like (as long as the gratuity was adequate). Phillip in CT

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/21/kelo-v-new-london/comment-page-1/#comment-62073 Thomas Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:56:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2897#comment-62073 Cranky- The question isn't whether there are abuses in the use of eminent domain. Clearly there are. (And just as cleary there's no constitutional right for developers, etc., to claim someone else's property. The question is, can the someone else assert a constitutional right to prevent the taking?) There are, without doubt, very many developsments--particularly, as I said, redevelopment projects--that wouldn't happen without eminent domain. Redevelopment projects are more expensive to begin with, compared to greenfield development. The additional costs imposed by the absence of eminent domain simply means that most of these projects won't happen. Some may still happen, but most will not. Certainly the example in my hometown wouldn't have happened. Not because the land was "worthless"--I never said that--but because the costs of acquisition and planning in the absence of eminent domain wouldn't have justified the project. (If the retailer's actions are going to be interpreted, why interpret them to mean what you'd have them mean? For example, the fact that the retailers hadn't moved in before the city acquired and cleared the property means the development wasn't worth doing if the city wasn't going to acquire and clear the land.) And I pointed out the money flow, in part because in the particular example some of the money flowed to inner-city residents in the surrounding area--residents who also can now go to "big box" retailers without driving for 40 minutes. Cranky- The question isn’t whether there are abuses in the use of eminent domain. Clearly there are. (And just as cleary there’s no constitutional right for developers, etc., to claim someone else’s property. The question is, can the someone else assert a constitutional right to prevent the taking?) There are, without doubt, very many developsments—particularly, as I said, redevelopment projects—that wouldn’t happen without eminent domain. Redevelopment projects are more expensive to begin with, compared to greenfield development. The additional costs imposed by the absence of eminent domain simply means that most of these projects won’t happen. Some may still happen, but most will not. Certainly the example in my hometown wouldn’t have happened. Not because the land was “worthless”—I never said that—but because the costs of acquisition and planning in the absence of eminent domain wouldn’t have justified the project. (If the retailer’s actions are going to be interpreted, why interpret them to mean what you’d have them mean? For example, the fact that the retailers hadn’t moved in before the city acquired and cleared the property means the development wasn’t worth doing if the city wasn’t going to acquire and clear the land.) And I pointed out the money flow, in part because in the particular example some of the money flowed to inner-city residents in the surrounding area—residents who also can now go to “big box” retailers without driving for 40 minutes.

]]>