Regarding yesterday’s stunningly anti-Constitutional, pro-government SCOTUS ruling expanding the scope of eminent domain, The New York Times editorializes:
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. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.
Translation: ”What’s wrong with tearing down the Unabomber’s little shack to make way for an orphanage? What’s wrong with evicting that bourgeois family from its long-held lakefront property in order to protect a species of marsh frog? After all, it’s for the greater good!”
The answer, of course, is obvious to anyone not on local government zoning boards, or the Times editorial staff, or in the liberal faction of the Supreme Court: what’s wrong is that the government doesn’t own the land.
Well, until yesterday, I mean.
George Gaskell quips in the comments here,
First they took our right to secede from the Union, and I did not speak
out–
because I was not a Southerner;
Then they came to take our money and instead issue only paper, and I did not
speak out–
because I did not have very much gold;
Then they came for a tax on our incomes, and I did not speak out–
because I was not wealthy;
Then they came to socialize my retirement and health care, and I did not
speak out–
because I was going to be old one day;
Then they came for my property–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I suspect he’s being only partly ironic.
More: Rick Moran has a nice essay here, in which he notes:
The decision handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday in the Kelo case where a group of Connecticut homeowners lost their fight to keep the city of New London from bulldozing their houses in order to put up a a host of projects that would benefit already wealthy developers (and incidentally bring in much more in tax revenue for the city than the working class homeowners currently pay) is one more indication that the “Age of Enlightenment†that played such an important role in defining individual rights for American citizens may have finally become irrelevant to the continuing experiment that our republic represents.
Well, the academy has been deconstructing enlightenment individualism for years; that the liberals on the court and in government have internalized the intellectual ethos of the last 39 years and have begun regurgitating its lessons in judicial rulings and policy decisions is hardly surprising, I’m afraid.
****
update: Tom Carroll is putting together “a flesh and blood support group composed of those close enough to help” the homeowners in New London. He’s posted a rough plan of action here. I mentioned yesterday that I’m interested in forming a cyber support group for the New Londoners who are planning a show of civil disobedience—and the first step is to move such an impulse beyond the realm of the theoretical. With Tom’s help, we can begin to do just that.
****
update 2: Glenn has today’s reaction roundup here; and from CNN, we learn that one of the New Londoners has been evicted under eminent domain before (h/t Bill)
****
update 3: Against eminent domain abuse? Consider joining the Castle Coalition.
My favorite part of the NYT editorial:
Did I miss the adoption of a Utilitarianism Amendment?
The funny thing is, it’s not even utilitrianism in its strictest sense: it’s “benign fascism” intended to emulate—as so become in retrospect—untilitarianism.
The one must serve the whole. You will be assimilated.
We need states to write legislation to define “public use” and two conservative judges to replace one of the majority and Renquist for when someone runs a suit back up the ladder to the SCOTUS.
Also, how long before this decision causes gunplay?
Spamword: class, as in warfare.
Really though, if all they’re going to do is bulldoze your house, what’s to keep you from taking their money and scuttling the property? Man, I’d hate to be Pfizer right now. I can’t imagine what kind of backlash they’re going to get from the locals.
SW=Hope. As in, I hope this never happens to me.
Anybody think to string up a couple of city fathers for their obnoxious behavior yet? Think globally, act locally. Pfizer’s cash won’t help a corpse.
I’m rather surprised to see the NYT or any liberals coming down on the side of the big biotech firm in this debate–presumably the defendants in this case weren’t themselves sufficiently poor or non-white to pluck their ‘faceless corporate evil’ chord. And since Pfizer is unlikely to directly employ many local people (how many unemployed biochemists live in impoverished little towns in Connecticut?) I’m also surprised to see the NYT advocating the positive ‘trickle-down’ effect of gentrifying a once poor area (Which I myself might, if it did NOT involve evicting private citizens from their homes) rather than bemoaning the end of New London’s many ‘rich traditions’ and ‘time-honored old ways’ in the face of wicked globalization.
I MUST be hanging out with too many hard leftists if the NYT is starting to look (kinda-sorta) ‘conservative’ to me.
Oh, and if it’s civil disobedience/support we’re after–what about Pfizer itself?
Gentlemen, it’s time to trade in your Viagra for Levitra.
(Spamword: average. . .I could, but I won’t.)
Uh-oh. Somebody dug up Lysander Spooner. That’s a bad sign for the government.
SB: came
vidi vici, baby
You’re exactly right, Jeff—I was being partly ironic (in the Gen-X tradition of blending the frivolous with the deadly serious). Kidding on-the-square.
Consider a possibile scenario—a town has a very wealthy resident who, although he does no harm to anyone, is very unpopular. He owns a choice piece of real estate in town.
Let’s say this guy gets on the wrong side of the local politicians. With the power to levy direct property taxes, they “zone” him for a massive property tax, each year for several years.
Then, armed with its newfound power under Kelo, the local government decides to seize his property, based on some bullshit public-purpose economic theory.
But they have to pay him, right? Why not use the huge fund generated by the property taxes he’s been paying for years?
Effectively, the local government ousts this erstwhile property owner, and they “pay” him the “just compensation” derived from the very taxes he himself paid.
Under the current state of affairs, there is not one thing in the law to stop it.
Judge Napolitano on FOX was pointing out that many states already have provisions in place to block the kind of thing the Supreme Court allowed for yesterday its decision—namely, the transfer of private property to another private interest.
Personally, I’d like to see an amendment to the 5th Amendment that makes it absolutely clear that this is a no-no under the Constitution in perpetuity.
Okay, perhaps mildly off topic, but I can’t help but share.
I just talked to a woman–in her late forties, seemingly intelligent–who blamed the SCOTUS decision on President Bush.
She fucking blamed it on Bush.
Okay, she fucking blamed it on Bush.
Feeling cranky.
alex
This is not about liberals suddenly finding out their knee-jerk animosity to anything “business” just masked a longterm crush
It’s because it underlines their basic tenet that the “collective good” trumps individual rights.
Liberals have a tendency to go into local politics… duty to help the greater good yadda yadda .. and SCOTUS just handed them a heap’o power to remake their communities in their image (and they will happily accept the increased bank accounts, thank you very much)
It’s crap like this decision that makes me glad I am leaving the ranks of the lawyers for something else. Someone from my (soon to be former) profession had to go into court and zealously advocate for taking these people’s homes away for an office park. Urp. Pardon me, I have to go indignantly puke…
OH… btw, some cities are not wasting time
Whoa! Eminent domained twice? Man, that’s karma on par with Wilmer McLean’s.
Well, as I see it Darleen, the liberal reaction to this legislation is likely to divide along the lines of–are we talking about the victory of the ‘common good’ or the triumph of an evil ‘master narrative’? That is, do we conceive of this law as being about turning the rich bourgeoisie out of its McMansions to make way for orphanages and workers’ housing, or about bulldozing poor neighborhoods to make way for the mayor’s golfing buddy’s new 50 story luxury hotel?
Both impulses exist on the left; it suffers from a strange combination of nanny statism and cultural relativism. Marx and Foucault. (Unfortunately, in practice the schism tends to resolve itself into nanny-state mandated ‘tolerance’ and cultural relativism, particularly favoring whatever cultures are in vogue at the time)
I don’t mean to imply that most leftists REALLY LIKE corporations and have been trying to hide it; I’m simply amused to see which possible left-liberal interpretation of the situation seems to have won out over at the Times. The dark influence of the wicked corporation has been purified by the exquisite sight of wise government gliding smoothly along unencumbered by its citizens.
Reminds me of an architecture professor of mine, a real Cuba-fetishist, who proclaimed that Cuba’s planning department was the most ‘rational’ he had ever seen.
Yeah, and I’ll bet the fucking trains run on time, too.
Oh, you really want to put together a civil disobedience action for when the bulldozers start moving up those folks’ driveways? Fast forward another five years:
JEFF GOLDSTEIN, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.,
No. 10-108. Argued February 22, 2011–Decided June 23, 2011
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
After Supreme Court upheld respondent city’s integrated development plan in the predecessor case of Kelo v. City of New London, petitioner Goldstein, through his weblog Protein Wisdom, organized “civil disobedience rally” in support of condemned New London homeowners. Petitioner was charged with and convicted of felony mob action. At all times through those proceedings petitioner argued that his activity was protected by the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, and thus had an absolute defense to criminal prosecution and conviction.
Held: The criminal conviction of petitioner for mob action did not violate the First Amendment, where petitioner’s activity was subordinate to and interfered with city’s need to take formerly private property for the “public purpose” of economic development.
When asked to comment on Justice Stevens’ decision, Goldstein was livid: “That 91 year old senile-ass Justice Stevens, what the f—? I’ve gotta be the first motherf—ing felon that liberal son of a b—- DIDN’T set free. What part of I AM A CITIZEN JOURNALIST did he not f—ing understand?”
Time capsule this for 2011.
Liberals generally like and trust government to do the right thing. Conservatives don’t. This is reflected in where individual judges came down on Kelo.
What we really have to be worried about is—
Held: Petitioner’s criminal conviction for Promoting Terror under the Improved Homeland Anti-Terrorism Act (2008) did not violate First Amendment nor exceed federal Commerce Clause power, where petitioner’s activity was subordinate to and interfered with government’s interest in regulating economic development.
I agree with Alex: this decision will fracture the Left into its component parts: the socialist core that supports it (which really runs things over there), and the namby-pamby, feel-good, Kum-By-Yah devotees of the Church of Non-Judgmentalism (which is really just a soft-headed easy voting bloc).
Of course, the latter group doesn’t care about or understand economic issues (except when the local all-hemp-sandal maker is Keloed by Costco). When that happens, they’ll get around to organizing a Sit In, where they’ll naturally blame Bush and pass around their petition addressed to President Hillary (who will not care).
My favorite part is still the NY TImes obvious motive for support of the decision (which at least they had the decency to disclose in the editorial): the fact that they’re getting their headquarters through a controversial use of the eminent domain power.
Because, y’know, the Times is all for the little guy, as long it doesn’t interefere with the Times’ plans. After all, if not for uses of eminent domain like this, how is New York City ever going to become an economic powerhouse?
Exactly. Like Redford or that Kennedy boy lecturing us on environmental issues after a private plane and limousine drop them at their 20 bedroom lodges.
Some of the comments seem to assume that Pfizer is involved in the condemnation. It is not. Though the planned development is on land near one of its facilities, and apparently the company favors the plan, it is not a party to the case and has not taken a formal position on it.
Well, unfortunately, the NYTimes editorial motivation can be summed up as applading a city’s ability to raise taxes–through an increase in the property value via delopment. That’s short-hand for more money for municipal and teachers unions.
By the graces of the city fathers’ good judgement are they now to fix the problems that have accumulated on their watch–the smart guys that got you into this fix are going to get you out?
Abysmal decision.
Hmmmm.
“Some of the comments seem to assume that Pfizer is involved in the condemnation. It is not. Though the planned development is on land near one of its facilities, and apparently the company favors the plan, it is not a party to the case and has not taken a formal position on it.”
I think that’s a bit too naive. I’m very pro-business, but let’s face facts here. A big corportion doesn’t just sit idly by and watch this sort of thing go on without significant interest in the outcome.
apparently the company favors the plan, it is not a party to the case and has not taken a formal position on it.
Just like the pimp that gets the ho to do the heavy lifting (licking, sucking, schtupping)
yeah, right, I buy that Pfizer has no formal position. They’re just letting the homeowners assume the position for the city council.
alex:
“Interpretation” may be too strong a word. The libs may just be too addle-pated to think the issue through clearly.
So, my rights as an American citizen are now formally indexed to how much tax revenue I can cough up for the local gummint.
…
…
This will take some getting used to.
Turing = progress, as in, You can’t fight city hall.