I wish more people who make this argument in the context of property rights would adhere to it in the context of other rights as well, and not let the executive branch be the judge of whether it is justified in eavesdropping on your phone calls or locking you up without charges and without a trial.

Picking on Obama again?

NickM: Martinned — the Hamptons is a very wealthy area on Long Island.Nick

Yes, I know. But I meant to agree with the earlier commenter: The Hampton’s aren’t in any immediate danger of being Keloed.

Nick

To put it another way: I would love to live within a quarter mile of Atlantic Yards, but I don’t have the $2000/mo. it would take to rent there. If Ratner builds his stadium there, it might become such a hassle to live nearby that prices would drop and I could actually afford it.

Obviously, virtually any area occasionally suffers from “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” and therefore could potentially be condemned under this rationale.

This is not obvious at all. (More generally, whenever a lawyer says “obviously”, I immediately look there for the flaw in the argument.)

The contours of what “economic underdevelopment and stagnation” means isn’t clear at all from this opinion, and there is no reason to think that this problem affects “virtually any area”. (BTW, it also isn’t clear to me that either “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” are sufficient – the opinion uses the conjunctive not the disjunctive.)

Ilya is assuming a slippery slope here from the railyard and surrounding area of Brooklyn to virutally any other area in New York – Upper East Side, Wall Street, Chappaqua, where ever. His continued use of the words “virtually any area” to describe the areas that this opinion affects seems to me to be inappropriate. The words of the opinion — areas that suffer from economic underdevelopment and stagnation — should be used instead.

Also, FYI, my understanding is that the team will likely be called the “Brooklyn Nets”.

Guy: Multi-million dollar mansions are arguably underdeveloped in that there is probably a more economically efficient way to use the land (most of it isn’t producing anything at all), but why do I doubt the state of New York is about to seize large tracts of land in the Hamptons?

Put simply: Republicans wouldn’t use eminent domain because they don’t believe in it, and Democrats don’t use eminent domain because they’d have to take the land from groups (like the poor) who disproportionally vote Democratic. Where’s the problem?

Seems like sound reasoning to me. I wish more people who make this argument in the context of property rights would adhere to it in the context of other rights as well, and not let the executive branch be the judge of whether it is justified in eavesdropping on your phone calls or locking you up without charges and without a trial.

Crunchy Frog: Whether or not the area to be condemned is ‘blighted’, doesn’t the new arena in itself constitute a ‘public use’? Who’s gonna buy tickets to Nets games, and countless other events? The public, that’s who.Though why anyone would want to buy tickets to a Nets game is beyond my comprehension.

Well, doesn’t the fact that the public has to buy tickets from a private individual to get in make it a private use?

The fact that members of the public might go to the game, doesn’t mean that it is a “public use” any more than the fact that members of the public might live in Ratner’s luxury condos does so. Otherwise, anything could be a public use, because virtually any land use involves some use by at least some members of the public. The traditional definition of a “public use” is either government ownership or a privately owned facility that members of the general public have a right to use as a matter of legal right (e.g. – a public utility that is legally required to serve any and all members of the public).

Nick

Though why anyone would want to buy tickets to a Nets game is beyond my comprehension.

Obviously, virtually any area occasionally suffers from “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” and therefore could potentially be condemned under this rationale.

I think that could be useful, imagine a local or state government appropriating land from the Audubon Society or Nature Trust for “economic underdevelopment”.

Thanks! I’ll make the correction.

As I noted in the post, given the broad definition of what counts as “blight” (any “underdevelopment” or “stagnation”), reasonable minds can pretty much always disagree over whether it is present. Thus, the decision does effectively abdicate judicial review, even though it doesn’t say it in so many words.

Also, I found suprising, as a watcher of the New York Court of Appeals, that Judge Graffeo sided with the majority opinion. She was appointed by Governor Pataki, and generally she sides with Judge Smith, Judge Piggott, and Judge Read (fellow Pataki appointees.) Not only did she not join Judge Smith’s dissent, she didn’t join Judge Read’s concurrence deciding for the developers on procedural grounds. My thought is that the appeal to separation of powers in the majority opinion may have been what persuaded her to join the majority, or it results from her stint as assistant counsel in the New York Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (respect for administrative determinations primarily comes to mind)

Ilya Somin: Hang on, are they going to have the Nets play in New York while the Giants play in New Jersey?
It would seem so. Perhaps the Nets should go back to calling themselves the New York Nets, as they did for a time when they played in the ABA.

… American sports will never cease to amaze me.

It would seem so. Perhaps the Nets should go back to calling themselves the New York Nets, as they did for a time when they played in the ABA.