« Dating Industry | Main | Lawyers, Knowledge Management, and OPML »
Kelo v. New London
Because I can't resist throwing in my two cents: When I first learned yesterday that the Supreme Court said it's ok for the government to take private property from small, individual owners and give it to large, conglomerate owners so that those big owners can make tons of money from it, I was honestly a little conflicted.
On one hand, I'm happy to see the government exercise its takings powers for the public good. We take private property to an insane extreme in the U.S., and I like the government's takings powers because, theoretically, they put the public good over private profit in a very blunt and inescapable way.
That said, this decision is deeply offensive because it appears to turn that spirit of the takings clause and turn it against itself in a very perverse way. In short, Kelo basically builds trickle-down economics into the law of takings, and if you grew up in the 1980s under Reagan's “voodoo economics” (which is what George H.W. Bush called it) you'll know what that means: They're pissing on us! Or if you prefer another metaphor, the Supreme Court has said (once again) it's ok for government to give all the cake to those who already have the largest portions and we'll just hope that everyone else can survive on the crumbs that fall.
Awesome.
Ahem. If you'd like more erudite and measured discussion of the decision. don't miss the SCOTUSblog's metablog on Kelo. The decision itself is here from the LII.
And speaking of the LII, it is currently seeking donations. As far as I know, the LII was the first to have the Kelo decision available online, and that's just one of the invaluable services the LII provides. In the let-them-eat-cake economy of legal research, the LII is one way to make sure we get more than just crumbs, so please do your part to keep it healthy.
Posted June 24, 2005 07:00 AM | law general
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mowabb.com/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/3943
I first heard about this case from the National Trust some months ago, and I still don't see how a condo and office development is for the public good, especially when it levels and replaces an entire established neighborhood. I suppose it just wasn't upscale enough for Pfizer...and Pfizer of course is all about the public good!
Heck, even my neighborhood, which is quite well kept and stable, and even on the upswing (the "no weapons" sign on the nearest bar notwithstanding), could be declared "in decline" compared to brand-new condos. Poof! I declare you blighted!
Despite the fact states are still free to pass restrictions on the use of eminent domain, I fear we're destined to become even more a land of strip malls and anonymous office complexes, all in the name of "redevelopment." After all, who needs a place to live when we could shop instead?
Posted by: raquel at June 24, 2005 10:54 AM
Forgot to add above that what's particularly unsettling is that it's not so much that property can be declared blighted and taken for other uses, but that it really only needs be declared that the property is not being used at its "best"/"highest" level of use, and therefore can be given to someone who would theoretically do so.
I'd better go mow my lawn before someone decides to take my house and put up a Starbucks.
Posted by: raquel at June 24, 2005 11:05 AM
Interestingly, while this case was headed for the Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed itself on the infamous Poletown decision.
Posted by: Steve at June 25, 2005 02:48 AM
