At RealClearMarkets, Steven Malanga observes the third anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London — which allows governments to use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development — by returning to the scene of the crime:
[T]he very redevelopment project that sparked the Kelo lawsuit, an effort by the town of New London, Ct., to turn its Fort Trumbull waterfront into a haven for high-priced homes and 21st century jobs, has sputtered. The ground where Susette Kelo’s home stood is now barren, because the townhouses that the city-sponsored developer was supposed to build there have never gone up. Interest in the area isn’t very great and the developer hasn’t been able to get financing. In fact, what began more than a decade ago as an extravagant ‘public-private’ scheme to redevelop this whole area around tourism, research and development and luxury residential uses has produced little except ongoing construction on a $17 million Coast Guard station.
Malanga goes on to note the rather spotty record of “state capitalism,” which continues to thrive primarily because “public-private partnerships” empower politicians and the private “entrepreneurs” who partner with them.
This is not much of a surprise to those who know the Supreme Court’s track record on land use issues. The modern era of municipal zoning really starts with the Court’s decision in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., a 1926 case. The village passed a zoning ordinance in an attempt to prevent industrial Cleveland from growing into and subsuming Euclid. The new law hindered Amber Realty’s ability to develop its land for industrial use.  The Supreme Court rejected the realty company’s due process claim, ruling that the challenged zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village’s police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat.
Part of the Amber property eventually did house a General Motors wartime plant following a zoning change. After World War II, the site became home to a GM Fisher Body division plant, which closed in the early 1970s. But the basic zones have remained unchanged to this day, making for some odd bedfellows – such as Euclid Square Mall, which is planted in an industrial zone – and the overall hampering of development flexibility.
On the bright side, local politicians in Euclid probably did well.
is gone now, this
Karl,
Can the concept of precedent be said to be off the table following the ruling in Boumediene where it was thrown under the bus?
– Karl, that sort of politiking with a Capital K could be told in a thousand other instances around Cleveland and the suburbs, from the GE plant off Nobel rd to the old Jack & Heintz plant out in Solon.
dre,
Certainly not. The Court has made its share of bad decisions since its inception. It proves only — as I wrote yesterday — that the Court is human. Its worst mistakes get corrected over time. And Boumediene is eminently correctable, as it largely turns on Gitmo’s unique leasehold.
BBH,
Indeed — and many other locales, which is why I posted.
“The Court has made its share of bad decisions since its inception…Its worst mistakes get corrected over time.”
Yes indeed, but, as we’ve repeatedly learned to our sorrow, the corrections to judicial “mistakes” have often required expending copious amounts of treasure…and blood. “Dred Scott v. Sandford” anyone? How about “Plessy v. Ferguson?”
One can make a good case that the Confederacy should have fought for its independence through the courts rather than on the battlefield–with Chief Justice Roger Taney at the SCOTUS helm, it might well have won.
Well who wants to join in on the countdown until the 2nd gets changed to “shall not be infringed until evolving standards of decency or foreign law say otherwise”?
You!
How long till you figure they rule the 2nd unconstitutional? Hahahahahha.
Are they ruling on the 2nd Amendment’s constituitionality? I missed that. Must have been on that bastion of conservative thought MSNBC!
When nishi and ProggHero write “Hahahaha” or “hehe,” the reader voice in my head sounds kind of manic, high-pitched, and irrational.
Comment by Cowboy on 6/26 @ 5:28 am #
When nishi and ProggHero write “Hahahaha†or “hehe,†the reader voice in my head sounds kind of manic, high-pitched, and irrational.
Bet me that the next post is completely unrelated.
Well kinda hard to relate to a post on my laugh over the net.
Comment by ProggHero on 6/26 @ 5:35 am #
Well kinda hard to relate to a post on my laugh over the net.
So, are they ruling on the 2nd Amendment’s constituitionality?
I would personally consider the ruling today, that the federal government can ban all firearms, as ruling on the second. IMHO.
As far as overturning Kelo, has anybody checked with Senator Arlen Spector as to the status of the ruling? After all, we need to make sure that Kelo is not a “super precedent” like Roe V. Wade, a reference he made during Roberts confirmation hearings. Cuz we wouldn’t want to mess with them there “super precedents now, y’hear?
Proggie started jabbering about the 2nd in another thread. He/she is either burnishing its satire bona fides or failed to take its Ritalin.
proggie, in your IMHO substitute “Hackneyed” for “Humble.”
I would personally consider the ruling today, that the federal government can ban all firearms, as ruling on the second. IMHO.
But not on the constituitionality of the 2nd Amendment, personally or otherwise!
Well roboc let me ask you a question. If they do rule in favor of the gun ban, what logic, precident, or foreign law will they use to do it?
Do you people realize PH has you arguing over whether the Constitution is fucking unconstitutional?
Well bush did say it was just a piece of f@ing paper.
Are we talking about the constituitionality of the 2nd Amendment or a gun ban? I was responding to your comment, “How long till you figure they rule the 2nd unconstitutional? Hahahahahha.” Then you shifted the conversation.
PH, I didn’t think you wanted to make the foolish assertion that there was going to be a ruling on the constituitionality of the 2nd Amendment. You just wanted to make the ridiculous point that logically American citizens shouldn’t be able to defend themselves with guns, throwing in some suggestion about precident[sic], and of course, the relevance(not) of foreign law. But I digress. I’m sure you had to call 911 or cook your kids dinner.
If the USSC rules that the DC gun ban is Constitutional they will likely do so on the extremely limited grounds that DC is a special jurisdictional area, like a federal park. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that they will uphold the lower court ruling that it is not Constitutional, but then this court is a heart breaker so who knows.
Yeah, tell that to the criminals who use guns against the law abiding citizenry. Put down that gun, or I’m going to dial 911! No, I mean it! Hey, you do know there is a ban on guns, don’t you? What, you’re a criminal, and don’t care! Well, as soon as the police get here, I’m going to tell them what you said!
ProggHero: “How long till you figure they rule the 2nd unconstitutional? ”
They can’t, PH — the 2nd Amendment *IS* part of the Constitution and, as such, is beyond the Supreme Court’s reach. The only way for the 2nd Amendment to become “unconstitutional” would be for a new Amendment to be passed and ratified by the requisite number of states. Even the leading law lights of the Liberal Left have been coming to grips with this truth.
This just in, the ruling is in…
The Supreme Court has declared that individual citizens not connected to a militia, have a Constitutional right to own guns.
The 5-4 ruling strikes down the DC ban as unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
The decision goes beyond the wants and desires of the Bush administration, protecting the rights of the individual. The Constitution does not permit the absolute prohibition of handguns in the home for self defense.
This is not the end of the issue, merely the start.
The weakness of gun-control laws is that those who abide by laws are not a part of the problem. Criminals, pretty much definitionally, have little in the way of moral qualms about breaking the law.
[…] down under Mayor Richard M. Daley were truly wretched. But public-private partnerships have a spotty track record in general. Even at the time, critics in Chicago noted that such projects had a history of […]