Remember the Kelo v New London case? Jeff covered it in June 2005.
[T]he Supreme Court has just expanded the government’s right to seize private property for “the public good”—which, in the case of New London, Connecticut, means tearing down people’s homes in order to make way for a Pfizer office complex
I wrote at the time:
if Starbucks casts a covetous eye on your abode and can convince the city council they can bring more revenue in taxes than you do because, well, all you do is live there, you might as well start packing cuz your house is toast (served in triangles, sprinkled with Hawaiian cane sugar and Sri Lankan cinnamon accompanying an Espresso Macchiato).
While the NYTimes sneered at all who fetishize private property
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. [...]New London’s development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.
Shorter NYTimes: The few shall be sacrificed for the many.
Oh. BUT WAIT!!!
Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain takingThe private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.
But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes’ seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.
Oops. Nevermind.
Comment by maggie katzen on 11/10 @ 1:16 am #
*sigh* at least I got to vote on some state constitutional amendments to prevent this kind of thing.
Comment by geoffb on 11/10 @ 1:33 am #
Detroit should try this, it would improve the livability of many areas. Raise the tax base also.
Comment by dicentra on 11/10 @ 1:44 am #
Figures. At least we’ve got another handy visual metaphor to go with the Bridge to Nowhere and the collapsed roofs of Valerie Jarrett’s projects.
Comment by Snowcone on 11/10 @ 2:38 am #
Wonder what Republican front runner Huck Huck Huckabee thinks about this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29307.html
Comment by alppuccino on 11/10 @ 3:12 am #
HA! Look at #4! No one cares what Snowcone thinks and apparently neither does Snowcone. That strikes me as funny.
Comment by alppuccino on 11/10 @ 3:16 am #
..or
Gee, only 49% of Americans ’somewhat approve’ of Obama and I’m pretty sure 12% of those are just hedging against racism charges. Again, gee, I wonder what Obama thinks about all of this.
Comment by Snowclone on 11/10 @ 4:15 am #
I like the cut of his jib, this snowcone. Mock him if you must, but it takes oodles of derring-do, a dollop of grit, a thimble of moxie and a modicum of savoir faire to suckle at the teat of buffoonery each day and greet the new dawn without the urge to fellate the barrel of a Colt .45. Who among us could face the rooster’s crow in the shoes of a doddering imbecile? Not I. Thus I salute you, snowcone, le grand genie comique, purveyor of the greatest of unintentional art forms.
Comment by sashal on 11/10 @ 6:43 am #
and the guy who manages that NL development corporation is married to Pfizer executive.
the whole deal stunk to high havens.
Comment by Bob Reed on 11/10 @ 6:48 am #
So these folks had their freedom infringed on, for what..? So Pfizer could tear down their homes, and then abandon the project. Just another instance where the judgement of our “betters” in government is 180 degrees out of phase with reality…
Comment by Joe on 11/10 @ 7:05 am #
The problem is the precedent is set and feds and state government will engage in this sort of shennanigans again. Given these judicial rulings, the only prohibition that will work is a constitutional ban on such takings. Good luck getting that passed.
Comment by Pablo on 11/10 @ 7:08 am #
This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. Just up the road from me, the state screwed a number of longtime land owners on behalf of Dow, who then turned around and screwed everyone involved. A couple of great little businesses, integral parts of the community that existed as long as anyone can remember are gone forever were run out of business by the state and replaced with absolutely nothing.
Comment by donald on 11/10 @ 7:15 am #
Pablo,
I see Tom Caffey’s seedy hand in this.
Comment by Pablo on 11/10 @ 7:17 am #
donald,
Where’s Declan when you need him?
Comment by JHo on 11/10 @ 7:38 am #
Used to be there were laws on books that required folks willfully harmed by the State to put liens on the property of the individual offender-officials. Probably they’re still there. But today, sheeple.
Comment by mossberg on 11/10 @ 7:39 am #
Since I won’t be able to comment tomorrow, let me express my gratitude to all the veterans who frequent this blog.
Comment by JD on 11/10 @ 7:54 am #
Concertina wire, folks.
Comment by Eben on 11/10 @ 8:15 am #
Wonder what Barry Barry Bo Barry thinks of this Obama Commits Hari Kari
Comment by donald on 11/10 @ 8:23 am #
Pablo, I’m watching season one for the first time. I didn’t start till part way through the second season. My humble opinion, and I’m not right about too much, it’s like about 20 gazillion times better than the Sopranos ever thought about being.
Mossberg, My nephew leaves for Afghanistan on Saturday. I had dinner with him and his wife (And 3 little kids!) at a fancy schmancy spot on River Street in Savannah on Sunday. They’ve never really gotten to do stuff like that and it felt awesome. The waiter cringed when we sat down, we’re kinda scruffy redneck types, but he dug down deep, gave the kids all the cocktail swords they could handle and a great time was had by all. He’s gonna be rcovering shot down helicopters, he says it’s no big deal, that’s why he’s cool!
Comment by donald on 11/10 @ 8:24 am #
Scares the shit out of me, I don’t think I got his balls.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 11/10 @ 8:31 am #
“Comment by Snowcone on 11/10 @ 2:38 am #
Wonder what Republican front runner Huck Huck Huckabee thinks about this:”
He doesn’t.
Comment by Squid on 11/10 @ 8:59 am #
I searched Snowclown’s linked article for the terms “Kelo,” “property rights,” “eminent domain,” and “unlawful taking,” and came up blank on all of them.
Snowy — what does the linked article have to do with politically-connected developers taking people’s homes in order to make a few bucks? Or with business-connected politicians making a few bucks by taking people’s homes? Or with an ostensibly liberal Supreme Court siding with the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless to support these takings?
While SNOWBOT 3.2 ponders his next non sequitur, the rest of us can chew on this: I work with a lot of local economic development authorities, and the Kelo blowback at the state and local level has these people shitting bricks. In many parts of the upper midwest, these guys are hesitant to take property even for something as “acceptable” as a road or a school. I fully expect the pendulum to swing back before too long, but I take some satisfaction in knowing that Kelo was a Pyrrhic victory for the redevelopment authorities.
Comment by orthodoc on 11/10 @ 10:12 am #
“In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what’s going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.
“The world’s most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block’s other property owners didn’t want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.”
From 2003. Amazingly enough, the NY Times never bothered to mention this in their advertorial.
Conflict of interest, anyone?
Comment by LTC John on 11/10 @ 10:12 am #
Squid - In IL we have a uniquely corrupt solution! IL politicos and conceted friends hurry and buy up property BEFORE it can be condemned (primarily by the IL Tollway Authority) and then you cash in when the property is bought by the G for bigtime $. It did really blow up in the faces of some when the Peotone Airport that had been floated as an alternative to O’Hare expansion got shot down. Lots of big time operators and friends now stuck with parcels that just don’t happen to be worth much at all - ha!
Comment by Squid on 11/10 @ 10:14 am #
Thanks, LTC. I love a story with a happy ending!
Comment by JD on 11/10 @ 10:23 am #
Kind of like the Olympics speculation, LtC John?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 11/10 @ 10:24 am #
It did really blow up in the faces of some when the Governor William J. Lepetomane Airport….
TFTFY
Comment by LTC John on 11/10 @ 10:29 am #
JD, you would know that better than I! I just witness judicial corruption, where you get to see the whole spectrum.
Comment by Pablo on 11/10 @ 10:37 am #
Yeah, it was a great show, and all too realistic. Also, I had the novelty of being very familiar with most of the locations. Too bad it didn’t catch on.
Comment by Snowcone on 11/10 @ 10:42 am #
Go Capitalism!
Comment by Eben on 11/10 @ 10:46 am #
Go Capitalism!
lolcat, are you having fun with those voices in your head again?
Comment by Neo on 11/10 @ 10:47 am #
I always felt that the previous owner of a property taken by eminent domain should be given “first refusal rights” if the property later passes from “public” to “private” hands.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 11/10 @ 10:51 am #
snotspill, you wouldn’t know Capitalism is it grew teeeth, snuck up on you and bit you in your shriveled little scrotum.
Comment by Joe on 11/10 @ 10:54 am #
Rockefeller, blocked by private citizens, set in play the change in New York law that now allows liberal eminent domain powers in New York. They are fucking with us and they know they can fuck with us. Get used to it bitches!
Comment by Joe on 11/10 @ 10:56 am #
I think there is an analogy about that in Mad Men. Then again, I can’t blame Rockefeller’s assistant for wanting January Jones.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 11/10 @ 10:58 am #
Right, because the first principle of capitalism is that the state has the right to take your property away and give it to those who the state finds more worthy of it.
Inevitably, the post-modern folds back into the pre-modern. A democratic state, acting out of social consciousness, for the public good, yields a relationship with land that the most reactionary feudal seignieur would nod at approvingly.
“a few small property owners” = the modern euphemis for “peasants”.
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 11/10 @ 11:12 am #
OT - I left this on the Anderson Vanderbilt Coopers 360 blogad regarding a hit piece against Texas’s Republican Senators opposing healthcare reform. Odds that the moderators approve it? I’d give my self less than 20%
Anderson,
Regarding the piece on uninsured citizens on Texas that was run last night. It was a very poorly presented piece that cherry picked statistical data seemingly to tar the Republican senators of the state who oppose the healthcare plan as uncaring and selfish. While your correspondent talked about Texas having the highest % of uninsured residents (25%) and children (22%) in the nation, I kept asking why you did not take 10 seconds to explain the breakdown of the gross statistics.
Because a quick analysis of the date will show how the central theme of the story falls apart very quickly. Data is available:
here and
here.
When analyzing the total population, one always has to account for 2 population groups. Those that choose not to buy and illegals (who cannot buy). Taking the 25% figure you used (and corroborated from the website above)
27% of the uninsured are illegal – that lowers the total uninsured percentage to 18.1% from 25%.
19% declined to buy benefits are uninsured. Just simple back of the envelope math says if 7% of the total population are illegals, then to avoid double counting, lets take that out of the 19% statistic to get 17.67% and apply that to the 18.1% calculated above and you get to a total uninsured population of 15.1% … far less than the national average of 20%.
As far as children in Texas, 50% of the uninsured children are eligible but not signed up for sCHIP. So the actual uninsured (those that lack of coverage for other reasons) is really 11% – which is par to the national average. It didn’t take me that long to come up with the math, why couldn’t your reporter have done the same?
That would be reporting the facts to the population. That would be called responsible journalism. What was presented last night was a cheap and dirty hit piece on the Republican Senators of Texas, nothing more. C’mon guys, so long as you continue to peddle this type of bias, you will continue to be marginalized as a news organization.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 11/10 @ 11:17 am #
Fixed it for ya.
Pingback by Eminent Domain Abuse is . . . Well, Abuse | Constant Conservative on 11/10 @ 11:32 am #
[...] at Protein Wisdom remembers: Oh. BUT [...]
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 11/10 @ 11:33 am #
bob reed: So these folks had their freedom infringed on, for what..? So Pfizer could tear down their homes, and then abandon the project.
Someone explain again what was so bad about the 19th century robber barons.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 11/10 @ 11:41 am #
Good question, Sanity. You know if J.P. Morgan had turned folks out of their homes, he would have damn sure made a buck off of it. His orc nose would have considered it a moral obligation.
Comment by meya on 11/10 @ 1:01 pm #
“As far as children in Texas, 50% of the uninsured children are eligible but not signed up for sCHIP. So the actual uninsured (those that lack of coverage for other reasons) is really 11% – which is par to the national average.”
Why would you not count those who are eligible but not signed up for sCHIP? Are they insured or uninsured?
Comment by Pablo on 11/10 @ 1:10 pm #
Insurance is available to them. Why would you count them to support an argument that they can’t get insurance when free coverage is available to them?
Comment by OCBill on 11/10 @ 1:15 pm #
The problem isn’t the fields of weeds, though it’s illustrative of the Supreme Court’s reasoning. The problem is that Kelo effectively abolished any meaningful notion of Private Property. The “owners” are essentially tenants who keep the place maintained until the government decides it has a better use for it. And the “fair market value” that is given the owner in return is pretty much always a joke compared to actual Fair Market Value (no quotes).
Comment by LTC John on 11/10 @ 1:17 pm #
Pablo, you know why meya would do that, right? :)
Comment by BJTexs on 11/10 @ 1:25 pm #
Meya, the question you asked at #41 is the dumbest question you have evr asked on this forum.
That’s saying a lot, BTW.
Even Obama stopped using the thoroughly contrived “47 million uninsured” number during his last address on Health reform. Most of the country understands the subtle nuancy difference from people who want and need coverage but have no way to get it as opposed to people who don’t sign up for available coverage or, pay attention now, choose to go without.
I know, it’s tricky and hidden but it’s there none the less.
Comment by Squid on 11/10 @ 1:33 pm #
In meya’s world, would the parents who couldn’t be bothered to get insurance for their children be taken into custody, or would they just lose custody of their kids?
Comment by B Moe on 11/10 @ 1:37 pm #
They would be given more money, Squid. Don’t you know that is the solution for everything?
Comment by meya on 11/10 @ 1:44 pm #
“Why would you count them to support an argument that they can’t get insurance when free coverage is available to them?”
I see your point, and that is a nice counter to the simple “If they don’t have insurance, they are uninsured.” But I also wouldn’t count it as “free.” If they were to take up insurance, then costs would rise, whether it is via them signing up for sCHIP or some other scheme.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 11/10 @ 1:52 pm #
“But I also wouldn’t count it as “free.” If they were to take up insurance, then costs would rise, whether it is via them signing up for sCHIP or some other scheme.
I see, I see.
But…Obamacare…which is a comparative aircraft carrier to sCHIP’s rubber bathtub duck will be deficit neutral, right?
Comment by meya on 11/10 @ 2:01 pm #
“But…Obamacare…which is a comparative aircraft carrier to sCHIP’s rubber bathtub duck will be deficit neutral, right?”
I’m not up to date on what the different bills do the deficit. Would it help to make it off budget like a war supplemental?
Comment by Pablo on 11/10 @ 2:06 pm #
Or maybe we should make war funding permanent.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 11/10 @ 2:12 pm #
“I’m not up to date on what the different bills do the deficit.”
Don’t feel bad.
Neither is your President.
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 11/10 @ 2:24 pm #
If they were to take up insurance, then costs would rise, whether it is via them signing up for sCHIP or some other scheme
Meya, with regard to sCHIP, costs would not necessarily go up. That money has been already budgeted and disbursed to the states. With other schemes, as in traditional insurance, the pooling effect dominates. More people participating in the liability pool allows economies of scale to exert themselves. Incidently, this is the basis of the argument behind taking the intra-state restriction off health insurers.
Comment by Pablo on 11/10 @ 2:37 pm #
The cost of smoking went up to provide the coverage. It’s already a done deal. But given your newfound realization that health care costs money, how do you suppose we’re going to cover the remaining 15.1% without raising costs? Are we going to suspend the laws of supply and demand somehow?
Comment by BJTexs on 11/10 @ 2:45 pm #
If meya is going to argue in the rhetorical style of “The Cask of Amontillado” she really should understand that she needs to be on the outside when bricking up the wall.
You know, it’s hard to argue about our need to control the spiraling costs of health care when you argue that having more people sign up for programs already in existence will increase costs.
Comment by SDN on 11/10 @ 7:11 pm #
Well, meya, when healthcare funding is specifically referred to in the Constitution the way funding the military is, we can talk.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 11/10 @ 9:20 pm #
It is hard to hear from people about costs when they think we can extend coverage for free.
Talk to the President then. That’s his alchemy as well.
Of course, increasing the supply of something does tend to make it cost less…if cost is something you happen to be concerned about. Then maybe we could fuss less about health “coverage” and more about health care.
But then there wouldn’t be anything for the Care Brigades to slap themselves on the back about, would there?
Comment by meya on 11/10 @ 10:35 pm #
“Talk to the President then. That’s his alchemy as well.”
And here I thought these plans were all going to cost billions.
Comment by Rusty on 11/11 @ 6:43 am #
It is hard to hear from people about costs when they think we can extend coverage for free. Per enrolee costs may go down if we have larger risk pools — as “old texas turkey” elaborates — but total cost will also go up too. It may end up costing as much as a war!
Only if the government is involved. As a matter of fact war would be cheaper.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 11/11 @ 6:57 am #
And here I thought these plans were all going to cost billions.
Yeah, funny thing about alchemy: it doesn’t work. But that doesn’t stop new generations of demagogues from trying to turn will into gold.
Comment by meya on 11/11 @ 7:06 am #
“Only if the government is involved. As a matter of fact war would be cheaper.”
I’m sure war would be much cheaper without the government too.
Comment by B Moe on 11/11 @ 7:29 am #
I am sure you totally lack the ability to think rationally and consider cause and effect.
Trackback by Maggie's Farm on 11/11 @ 12:26 pm #
More Wednesday links…
Are women pickier about men than men about women?
Kelo update: It’s a vacant lot
How Muslim piracy changed the world
SISU, a few weeks ago: "It compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies"
Jim Carrey: Self-hating capitalist
…
Comment by Curtis on 11/11 @ 4:19 pm #
You still a gun don’t you?
Comment by Rusty on 11/12 @ 6:47 am #
As I’ve been saying all along.Kinda OT.
Emerson Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer David Farr said the U.S. government is hurting manufacturers with regulation and taxes and his company will continue to focus on growth overseas.
“Washington is doing everything in their manpower, capability, to destroy U.S. manufacturing,” Farr said today in Chicago at a Baird Industrial Outlook conference. “Cap and trade, medical reform, labor rules.” . . . Farr, in his presentation, also said manufacturers are being hurt by taxes and regulation. He said companies will create jobs in India and China, “places where people want the products and where the governments welcome you to actually do something.”
Go to InstaPundit to get the link.
The Chinese just bought Delphi. I hope their learning curve on airbags isn’t as shallow as their other crappy stuff.