Comments on: NY Times Blog Discussion on the Implications of Pfizer’s Decision to Abandon its New London Facility Near the Site of the Kelo Takings http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/ Commentary on law, public policy, and more Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:07:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: James N. Gibson http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687914 James N. Gibson Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:37:29 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687914 Regardless of whether Pfizer miss-read the future economics of the project, or whether New London over stepped the cities rights, the real issue is the Kelo ruling it generated. To me this whole story is just another example of the kind of ruling we get from Justice Stevens. Kelo, the Heller Dissent and other statements he has made truly make me wonder if he's worse then Ginsberg. Regardless of whether Pfizer miss-read the future economics of the project, or whether New London over stepped the cities rights, the real issue is the Kelo ruling it generated. To me this whole story is just another example of the kind of ruling we get from Justice Stevens. Kelo, the Heller Dissent and other statements he has made truly make me wonder if he’s worse then Ginsberg.

]]> By: XBradTC http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687731 XBradTC Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:04:42 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687731 <em>How stupid was Pfizer’s original seizure, given the economic trends?</em> Not stupid at all. You can hardly blame Pfizer for rentseeking. The blame lies with the city of New London. How stupid was Pfizer’s original seizure, given the economic trends?

Not stupid at all. You can hardly blame Pfizer for rentseeking. The blame lies with the city of New London.

]]> By: Soronel Haetir http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687660 Soronel Haetir Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:29:33 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687660 <blockquote cite="comment-687515"> <strong><a href="#comment-687515" rel="nofollow">Ileene Crane-Franks</a></strong>: Are there any cases warming up in the lower court bullpen to bring this issue back to SCOTUS for reconsideration?This was a travesty for property rights and the individual vs. government. </blockquote> I doubt SCOTUS is going to take another look at this any time soon. Kelo may have been a lousy outcome all around but it was perfectly aligned with prior SCOTUS pronouncements on takings.

Ileene Crane-Franks: Are there any cases warming up in the lower court bullpen to bring this issue back to SCOTUS for reconsideration?This was a travesty for property rights and the individual vs. government.

I doubt SCOTUS is going to take another look at this any time soon. Kelo may have been a lousy outcome all around but it was perfectly aligned with prior SCOTUS pronouncements on takings.

]]> By: Bleepless http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687536 Bleepless Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:11:47 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687536 How stupid was Pfizer's original seizure, given the economic trends? How cynical was Pfizer's new decision? These could be important factors in deciding whether or not Pfizer should be penalized. How stupid was Pfizer’s original seizure, given the economic trends? How cynical was Pfizer’s new decision? These could be important factors in deciding whether or not Pfizer should be penalized.

]]> By: Ileene Crane-Franks http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687515 Ileene Crane-Franks Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:23:29 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687515 Are there any cases warming up in the lower court bullpen to bring this issue back to SCOTUS for reconsideration? This was a travesty for property rights and the individual vs. government. Are there any cases warming up in the lower court bullpen to bring this issue back to SCOTUS for reconsideration?

This was a travesty for property rights and the individual vs. government.

]]> By: Tim http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687497 Tim Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:25:39 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687497 The "best" mechanism would be for <em>McDonald v. City of Chicago</em> to prevail on our side, and allow P&I to incorporate the entire bill of rights in one sweep. The interesting question becomes where do we go from there? Grand juries for every state? I think not, but we shall see. The “best” mechanism would be for McDonald v. City of Chicago to prevail on our side, and allow P&I to incorporate the entire bill of rights in one sweep.

The interesting question becomes where do we go from there? Grand juries for every state? I think not, but we shall see.

]]> By: loki13 http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687464 loki13 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:41:39 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687464 <blockquote cite="comment-687356"> <strong><a href="#comment-687356" rel="nofollow">dave h</a></strong>: Well it can be both the Supreme Court and the local governments that screwed up. The government shouldn’t have taken the property in the first place, but the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens against the excesses of their government, and the Supreme Court is generally the mechanism for that happening. </blockquote> Huh. Let's see- Barron v. Baltimore held that the BoR wasn't to be incorporated against the states, so "generally" the Supreme Court wasn't the mechanism for that happening (and, historically, they didn't do much with the Federal Government either). What you mean is that after incorporation, SCOTUS developed some jurisprudence regarding states and the BoR. Of course, this gets into the whole problem of public use- and fair compensation. But since this is a *state* taking, isn't the best mechanism for reform to get your state government to pass laws protecting you? The BoR is a floor; your state can be much more protective (and some are). Then, as Ilya likes to put it, you can move with your feet to a state that protects you better. There is a long history of the use of eminent domain for private entities. What the entities are has changed depending on the nation's economy- mills, railroads, and so on. But the Court is not there to second-guess all decisions; I would suggest that this is a wonderful place for Federalism so that states that want to have more protection than the BoR floor may do so (think of them as laboratories of democracy!), states that don't won't, and we can see empirically how that affects the growth rate. Cool, huh!

dave h: Well it can be both the Supreme Court and the local governments that screwed up. The government shouldn’t have taken the property in the first place, but the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens against the excesses of their government, and the Supreme Court is generally the mechanism for that happening.

Huh. Let’s see-

Barron v. Baltimore held that the BoR wasn’t to be incorporated against the states, so “generally” the Supreme Court wasn’t the mechanism for that happening (and, historically, they didn’t do much with the Federal Government either).

What you mean is that after incorporation, SCOTUS developed some jurisprudence regarding states and the BoR. Of course, this gets into the whole problem of public use- and fair compensation.

But since this is a *state* taking, isn’t the best mechanism for reform to get your state government to pass laws protecting you? The BoR is a floor; your state can be much more protective (and some are). Then, as Ilya likes to put it, you can move with your feet to a state that protects you better.

There is a long history of the use of eminent domain for private entities. What the entities are has changed depending on the nation’s economy- mills, railroads, and so on. But the Court is not there to second-guess all decisions; I would suggest that this is a wonderful place for Federalism so that states that want to have more protection than the BoR floor may do so (think of them as laboratories of democracy!), states that don’t won’t, and we can see empirically how that affects the growth rate.

Cool, huh!

]]> By: EH http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687436 EH Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:21:30 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687436 <i>Crunchy Frog: Sure, if the poor are members of a favored demographic group with effective <strike>shakedown artists</strike> advocates.</i> Why you gotta hate on Goldman Sachs like that? Crunchy Frog:
Sure, if the poor are members of a favored demographic group with effective shakedown artists advocates.

Why you gotta hate on Goldman Sachs like that?

]]> By: ED Maven http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687414 ED Maven Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:24:11 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687414 What needs to be understood is that the Pfizer post-Kelo fiasco is hardly unique. Exactly the same thing happened in Yonkers (see Yonkers v. Otis Elevators, 2d Circuit). Recent history is replete with "public" projects (usually, but not always redevelopments) that failed, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and producing nothing in return. My all-time favorite is Los Angeles' 1970s acquisition of some 17,500 acres of desert land near Palmdale for a new "Intercontinental" airport which never got off the ground and was formally abandoned within the past year (LA turned in its FAA certification). A close second is New York blowing over $100 million for a new NYSE site and building that was never built. If you want to see a big mall created as a redevelopment project, that had to be abandoned and is now sitting empty, go to www.deadmalls.com and look at pictures of the Hawthorne mall. What needs to be understood is that the Pfizer post-Kelo fiasco is hardly unique. Exactly the same thing happened in Yonkers (see Yonkers v. Otis Elevators, 2d Circuit). Recent history is replete with “public” projects (usually, but not always redevelopments) that failed, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and producing nothing in return. My all-time favorite is Los Angeles’ 1970s acquisition of some 17,500 acres of desert land near Palmdale for a new “Intercontinental” airport which never got off the ground and was formally abandoned within the past year (LA turned in its FAA certification). A close second is New York blowing over $100 million for a new NYSE site and building that was never built. If you want to see a big mall created as a redevelopment project, that had to be abandoned and is now sitting empty, go to http://www.deadmalls.com and look at pictures of the Hawthorne mall.

]]> By: Joe http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687409 Joe Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:17:29 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687409 <em>Poor or politically weak? Is there a difference?</em> The named plaintiff was not poor. Poor or politically weak? Is there a difference?

The named plaintiff was not poor.

]]> By: dave h http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687356 dave h Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:51:38 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687356 Well it can be both the Supreme Court and the local governments that screwed up. The government shouldn't have taken the property in the first place, but the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens against the excesses of their government, and the Supreme Court is generally the mechanism for that happening. Well it can be both the Supreme Court and the local governments that screwed up. The government shouldn’t have taken the property in the first place, but the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens against the excesses of their government, and the Supreme Court is generally the mechanism for that happening.

]]> By: Steve http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687344 Steve Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:32:37 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687344 It's a shame that the takeaway from this will be "the Supreme Court screwed up," as opposed to "states and local communities need to look more skeptically at eminent domain," but I guess that's what comes of overemphasizing the importance of the court case. It’s a shame that the takeaway from this will be “the Supreme Court screwed up,” as opposed to “states and local communities need to look more skeptically at eminent domain,” but I guess that’s what comes of overemphasizing the importance of the court case.

]]> By: Richard Aubrey http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687336 Richard Aubrey Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:23:04 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687336 The question isn't what the city gained or lost. It's what the officials who decided to go ahead gained (likely did not lose). Lifetime forensic audits for officials in this position. The question isn’t what the city gained or lost.
It’s what the officials who decided to go ahead gained (likely did not lose).
Lifetime forensic audits for officials in this position.

]]> By: Crunchy Frog http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687335 Crunchy Frog Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:22:52 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687335 <blockquote cite="comment-687316"> <strong><a href="#comment-687316" rel="nofollow">SuperSkeptic</a></strong>: Poor <EM>or</EM> politically weak? Is there a difference? </blockquote> Sure, if the poor are members of a favored demographic group with effective <del>shakedown artists</del> advocates.

SuperSkeptic: Poor or politically weak? Is there a difference?

Sure, if the poor are members of a favored demographic group with effective shakedown artists advocates.

]]> By: Nick http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687332 Nick Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:21:16 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687332 If the city spent roughly $80mill to start the project, how much return have they seen? Sounds like a net loss but I haven't seen any articles confirming this. If the city spent roughly $80mill to start the project, how much return have they seen? Sounds like a net loss but I haven’t seen any articles confirming this.

]]> By: SuperSkeptic http://volokh.com/2009/11/13/ny-times-blog-discussion-on-the-implications-of-pfizers-decision-to-abandon-its-new-london-facility-near-the-site-of-the-kelo-takings/comment-page-1/#comment-687316 SuperSkeptic Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:01:36 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=21531#comment-687316 <blockquote>Usually, as in Kelo, those targeted for condemnation are poor or politically weak.</blockquote> Poor <em>or</em> politically weak? Is there a difference?

Usually, as in Kelo, those targeted for condemnation are poor or politically weak.

Poor or politically weak? Is there a difference?

]]>