For years, the site of the property condemned in the controversial Kelo v. City of New London case has stood empty. Now however, there are recent reports that the city of New London has found a developer interested in building townhouses on the site (see here and here) [HT: my RA Eva Choi, and Michael O'Malley of the Yale University Press].
Several previous plans to develop on the condemned property have gone under. In November, the Pfizer Corporation, whose lobbying helped instigate the initial takings, announced the planned closing of its headquarters in New London. That step further reduced the likelihood that anything will be built in the area. It remains to be soon whether the townhouse development will work out better than these previous efforts. At present, it is not clear how much the new project will cost taxpayers, and a news report indicates that “[c]onstruction on the project will not occur any time soon.”
Even if the townhouses are eventually built, it is unlikely that they will generate enough development to offset the value of the numerous homes and businesses wiped out by the condemnations, the opportunity cost of having the area lie empty for years, and the over $80 million in public funds already expended on the project.
Ironically, much of the condemned area was a lower-middle class residential neighborhood before the takings, and New London’s current plan is to use the land for roughly the same purpose. The City could have “achieved” this result at far lower cost simply by leaving the neighborhood alone in the first place. Taken as a whole, the Kelo story exemplifies the ways in which “economic development” takings not only victimize property owners, but also often destroy more development than they create (see also my more extended discussion in this article, which cites figures for the costs of the Kelo takings).
UPDATE: This article from the New London newspaper The Day gives more details, and says that the townhouse plan would not actually include any of the condemned land (though it would use some former federal government-owned land that was included in the redevelopment plan that also led to the condemnations):
The Stillmans’ [the developers'] plans call for two-story townhouses with peaked roofs and small porches close to the sidewalk. Garages and parking spaces would be in the back of the housing units, which would be clustered along East and Chelsea streets.
The housing would sit on 6.5 acres that used to be part of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center and were not involved in the eminent domain takings. It is adjacent to Fort Trumbull State Park and the Coast Guard Station.
The Stillmans said they would develop most of the townhouses for a “relatively upscale rental market” and would pursue marketing analysis to fine-tune the parameters of the development.
This suggests that the land taken by eminent domain would remain unused even if the townhouses are ultimately built.
Tim from Philly says:
Isn’t there some way that the people that lost their property can sue these ass-hat fuck face politicians? As an aside I note that David “the Dickhead” Souter will be speaking at ALI’s annual meeting. I hope someone has the balls to ask him how he feels about his vote in this case now.
February 23, 2010, 4:58 pmRandy says:
YOu would think we have learned from “urban renewal” in the 50s and 60s. Back then, it was the same approach: Clear out the low income areas, move out the poor, and then build fancy new stuff with highways. All it did was make life worse for the poor and blacks, and allowed whites to flee to the suburbs and use the new highways to commute to work.
This approach destroyed our cities permanently, and as a result, we are still paying in many ways for these sins.
One countervailing factor has been historic preservation laws, although they are often too weak to stave off the worst. Had we preserved our cities as they were in the past, they would be thriving areas instead of the ghettos that they have become.
Perhaps if the New London homes been protected by some sort of historic preservation laws, all this could have been avoided.
February 23, 2010, 5:01 pmProf. S. says:
Is Tim from Philly related to DontAsk? Honest question. I don’t remember DontAsk, but that comment seems to be on par with the ban-worthy commentary that saw DontAsk’s involuntary exit.
February 23, 2010, 5:07 pmIlya Somin says:
Is Tim from Philly related to DontAsk? Honest question. I don’t remember DontAsk, but that comment seems to be on par with the ban-worthy commentary that saw DontAsk’s involuntary exit.
I haven’t studied the Don’tAsk case, and I wasn’t the one who banned him. Tim’s language is unfortunate and undesirable. But he hasn’t been repeatedly nasty either to me or to the other commenters, and therefore doesn’t run afoul of my very broad tolerance for comments.
February 23, 2010, 5:32 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Historic preservation laws are just another form of taking. I believe that they are less just than what happened in Kelo. If you want to preserve something, at least have the decency to buy it and pay for the preservation yourself.
February 23, 2010, 5:37 pmroad2serfdom says:
I agree with Randy. If only the city of New London had laws giving them more control over the private property in question the city could have stopped this from happening.
February 23, 2010, 5:38 pmRandy says:
If the homeowners has historic preservation laws that had teeth in them, wouldn’t that have prevented a Kelo taking? If property owners had such laws in the 50s and 60s, wouldn’t that have prevented their taking as well? I fail to see how that would be a bad thing, especially if your goal is protection of property interest.
Houston lawyer: “f you want to preserve something, at least have the decency to buy it and pay for the preservation yourself.”
As most property owners in fact do. Moreover, they get tax credits for doing so, and that helps preserve the character of our cities. I live on Capitol Hill in Washington, which is one of the largest historic preservation districts in the country, and people here are vehement about enforcing the laws. It works to our benefit because it keeps the property values up and makes for a beautiful neighborhood that few other places can duplicate. No way could the city take my house, even under Kelo, and try to build a Walmart. I happen to think that’s a good thing.
February 23, 2010, 6:06 pmfwb says:
There in no way to view Kelo but as an abomination. It was wrong. The judges lied and acted beyond their authority. The Fifth Amendment states public use. There is no question as to the meaning of “public use” and it does not in any way, shape, or form include “public benefit”, as in new taxes for someone else.
But this is what We the People can to expect. The judges are appointed by the anointed and believe they too are members of some elite. They lie, cheat and steal from the people.
One man’s blight is another man’s Eden.
The courts do not have the authority to decide the meaning of such a simple word as “is” in the Constitution. The power to interpret is another judicial usurpation of authority.
The courts are inferior to, subordinate to the Constitution.
Next time you go into work why don’t you tell your boss his job!!! That is exactly what the courts are trying to do when they interpret the Constitution.
They are WRONG!
Tiocfaidh ar la!
February 23, 2010, 6:08 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Speaking of the Orwellian debasement of language, the word “Townhouses” used to be pronounced “Rowhomes”.
February 23, 2010, 6:13 pmJoe - Dallas says:
A secondary problem with the takings is the compensation paid to the owner of the blighted property. For example, in the case of the new sports stadium, the property owner is often paid based on the existing use of the property. (ie a blighted house). They rarely are paid based on the highest and best use. If everyone knows that a new sports stadium is going to be built where your house stands, then the property has a premium over the value as a residence.
As other authors familiar with takings, it allows developers to acquire property at prices that would otherwise make the project not viable.
February 23, 2010, 6:20 pmAnym_Avey says:
Live by the broken windows fallacy, die by the broken windows fallacy.
February 23, 2010, 6:40 pmMalvolio says:
Susette Kelo’s house wasn’t historic, it was just her house. “Historic preservation” is great when the government is paying you do what you want to do and stopping the other guy from doing what you don’t want him to do, but when you are the other guy, and you’re trying to tear down some useless eyesore you paid good more for, well, it’s less fun.
February 23, 2010, 6:43 pmSteve says:
They rarely are paid based on the highest and best use.
That’s because if you want your property to be valued based on the highest and best use, you should put in the effort to convert it to that use. Your proposal would incentivize property owners to hold out in virtually every case.
The moral argument that people ought to be allowed to stay in their homes loses force if it morphs into “people should be entitled to share in the profits of someone putting their property to a more valuable use.
February 23, 2010, 6:45 pmRandy says:
Malvolio: “Susette Kelo’s house wasn’t historic”
Are you sure? I can’t find when her house was built, but her book jacket shows a house with Victorian detailing, and she says that she bought her house and ‘lovingly restored it.” (Thereby satisfying the Houston Lawyer test). Historic preservation can be invoked for any structure at least 50 years old, and in some cases newer houses. From what I can gather, the neighborhood as a whole was much older than 50 years. (There are references to people who had lived there their whole lives, and several generations were raised there.)
Had the whole neighborhood been granted historic preservation status, that would have been at least a roadblock for the government, and potentially an insurmountable one. Given that most historic preservation districts arise from the property owners themselves to preserve the character and charm that they have been used to, what could be wrong with that?
February 23, 2010, 7:05 pmOff Kilter says:
The problem with “historic preservation” laws, Randy, is that it traps owners into maintaining something they cannot change. Want to put an addition on your home, or paint it a different color, or modernize it somehow? Sorry, it’s historic.
I find it ironic you think the way to prevent a Kelo taking is by using another form of taking.
February 23, 2010, 7:13 pmdeet says:
OK is on the money…
Just try to modernize and maintain a storefront within a “historic” district without being exposed to said district’s insane regulatory schemes.
February 23, 2010, 7:40 pmShelbyC says:
If you wish to present a case taking the seemingly fringe position that politicians aren’t a bunch of ass-hat fuck-faces, I’d be interested to hear it. But I’m not sure where you’d start, Tim’s position seems to be rock-solid.
February 23, 2010, 7:43 pmShelbyC says:
It would have prevented homeowners from selling property that they wanted to sell and the government didn’t want them to see. It would not have prevented the government from forcing them to sell property it wanted to sell.
Kind of like the old Soviet Union, where everything that wasn’t forbidden was mandatory.
February 23, 2010, 7:51 pmMalvolio says:
That’s entirely irrelevant. The value of Ms Kelo’s house was not that it satisfied some arbitrary definition of “historic” but that it was hers and she liked it.
Yes, it’s a fact that some people, through luck or skill, are able to manipulate the system so it screws other people and not them; that fact is not an admirable feature of the system.
February 23, 2010, 7:52 pmMike Schilling says:
Conservatives think that “bad idea” and “unconstitutional” don’t mean the same thing when it comes to, say, laws against birth control or consensual sexual activity between adults, yet this distinction eludes them when it comes to property. The fact that the New London condemnation has been a complete clusterf%%% has nothing to do with the correctness of Kelo v. City of New London.
February 23, 2010, 7:59 pmShelbyC says:
Well, in fairness the constitution explicitly protects property, but says nothing about birth control or consexual activity.
February 23, 2010, 8:13 pmKimberly Houser says:
This entire case was a travesty. The way eminent domain is being used today (and not just in New London) does seem to violate the Constitution. http://intheeyesofthelaw.com/2010/01/08/steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich/
February 23, 2010, 8:14 pmBT says:
They usually name new subdivisions after the very things they destroy to put them there, hence you get “Whispering Pines” and “Rolling Prairie”. I wonder what the name of the new development will be– “Kelo’s Landing” or “Court Kelo”?
February 23, 2010, 8:15 pmA. Criminal says:
Well, the K. v N.L. decision was obviously incorrect, but the case is also an example of why socialism and other uses of force are generally a bad idea, and also why they’re unconstitutional for this type of property use (i.e. private, not public).
February 23, 2010, 8:32 pmRandy says:
Malvolio: ” The value of Ms Kelo’s house was not that it satisfied some arbitrary definition of “historic” but that it was hers and she liked it.”
I agree. But certainly you agree that if she did have historic protections, that might have prevented the entire debacle? And if so, how would that ‘screw’ anyone but Pfizer? IT would just keep things status quo, which, I thought, was the whole point of everyone’s protest.
“Yes, it’s a fact that some people, through luck or skill, are able to manipulate the system so it screws other people and not them; that fact is not an admirable feature of the system.”
Are you actually arguing that historic preservation laws are not admirable and that they only serve to screw other people? If so, that’s a novel argument!
February 23, 2010, 8:33 pmArthur Kirkland says:
As I understand the situation, Americans generally can’t sue the police officer who conducts an unlawful search . . . the president who squanders soldiers’ lives by issuing foolish military orders . . . the cabinet member whose poor performance wastes billions on public funds . . . the government official who engages in unconstitutioal surveillance . . . the prosecutor who cynically convicts the innocent — and if immunity is to be altered, I propose taking on eminent domainiacs after completing the job with respect to prosecutors and police officers.
February 23, 2010, 8:37 pmShelbyC says:
It would have screwed her neighbor, who might have wanted to do something different with his house. Or maybe her heir, who might have wanted to sell.
Historic preservation laws as a counter to emenient domain strike me as about the same as laws requiring everybody to be gay as a counter to laws requiring everyone to be straight.
February 23, 2010, 8:38 pmMatt says:
Randy, unless you’re advocating that historical preservation should have been written into the Connecticut or federal constitutions, then at the end of the day there’s nothing substantive precluding New London or Connecticut from condemning whatever they want. A preservation law would have been but a speed bump.
It’s also a bit like telling a drug addict that, had he been addicted to cocaine, he never would have started using heroin. True, but the main point is that heavy gov’t involvement in real estate is generally a bad idea.
February 23, 2010, 8:55 pmSF Alpha Geek says:
As an aside, not only do I agree with Houston Lawyer, but let me just say that Houston’s exceptionally well crafted zoning laws and strict urban planning have contributed immensely to the growth and vibrancy of the city.
February 23, 2010, 9:00 pmHarvey Mosley says:
This is one of the few times we are in complete agreement, Arthur.
February 23, 2010, 9:18 pmJagermeister says:
With all due respect, Mike, (and in this case that’s very little), I doubt you have any idea what conservatives think. I don’t know any conservatives who want a legal ban on either of the examples you offer, and even those people who are morally opposed to them (such as Roman Catholics) are content with just trying for moral suasion within their own flock.
To a vast number of conservatives, and all of those who are conservative out of libertarian impulses, we could care less what other people do on their own time. We just don’t want to have to pay for other people’s peccadilloes, or have it paraded forcibly before our faces.
Endlessly repeating the same foul calumnies doesn’t make them true.
February 23, 2010, 9:43 pmJagermeister says:
While I agree that most laws restricting the freedom to use one’s property as one sees fit can be a form of taking, I think there is also a question to be asked if historic preservation laws are a form of rent seeking.
I bring this up because many “historic preservationists” are quick to point out that districts designated for “historic preservation” typically have property values rise faster than their unpreserved surroundings. But, seeing that their good fortune comes at the expense of their neighbor’s freedom of action, wouldn’t this be considered a form of rent seeking?
Just wondering.
February 23, 2010, 9:56 pmRandy says:
ShelbyC: “It would have screwed her neighbor, who might have wanted to do something different with his house. Or maybe her heir, who might have wanted to sell.”
So instead, both the neighbor and the heir were screwed. I still fail to see how, at least in this case, they would have been worse off.
Yes, I see the point — but I don’t see any uprising in historic preservation districts to get them removed. As I said, most homeowners support such designation. Those who don’t generally choose to live somewhere else.
Matt: “A preservation law would have been but a speed bump.”
Well, that’s what I would like to know. Do you have any evidence to support that?
“Historic preservation laws as a counter to emenient domain strike me as about the same as laws requiring everybody to be gay as a counter to laws requiring everyone to be straight.”
And everyone accuses ME of bringing up the gay issue!
February 23, 2010, 10:11 pmNew London May Build Townhouses on Site of Kelo Takings | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] New London May Build Townhouses on Site of Kelo Takings [...]
February 23, 2010, 10:20 pmRicardo says:
You completely misread the comment. The point is that there are indeed conservatives out there who think Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas were decided incorrectly. You could start by reading the dissents of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Lawrence case to see that this is indeed the case. Or you could read this National Review article from 2005 entitled “The Bad Decision That Started It All” about the Griswold decision.
February 23, 2010, 10:29 pmDeezrightwingnutz says:
I think that those responsible for the takings should have their property condemned for exhibits on/memorials to the Takings Clause.
February 23, 2010, 10:30 pmUrban economist says:
“…. the Kelo story exemplifies the ways in which “economic development” takings not only victimize property owners, but also often destroy more development than they create”
replace often with almost always, especially in urban areas, and I would agree.
One can dream.
February 23, 2010, 10:55 pmWhen I discuss this kind of stuff with would be urban planners, a significant portion of their arguments for planning are in response to plannings previous failures.
Mike Schilling says:
Did you read what I wrote? Perhaps. Did you understand it? No.
Yes, almost everyone these days, conservatives included, think that banning birth control is a bad idea. Do conservatives think such a ban is unconstitutional? If so, it’s odd how often they make fun of Griswold.
February 23, 2010, 11:02 pmMatt says:
One would think that a city council’s ability to alter or repeal an ordinance would be common knowledge, but in fact the Missoula city council is considering narrowing their historical preservation code as we speak. I’m sure in the time it took you to type that question to me Google could have answered it for you.
http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_9f2f83ec-1ead-11df-9e2b-001cc4c03286.html
February 23, 2010, 11:44 pmJames N. Gibson says:
MY late father had two engineering philosophy’s:
(1) If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
(2) The destroyer of Good is not always better.
They destroyed a living community to build something new that would bring in lots of money according to the city accountants. Instead it also prompted lawsuits, a SCOTUS case that several on the VC seem to disagree with, and now the total withdraw of the company who’s project was to bring all this money in. Seems normal: the only one that made any money were the lawyers.
The Kelo case is just one of many situations were cities and counties have been talked into allowing an industry or a community within their boundaries to die and then be destroyed because someone put together a report that says the city or country will make more by redevelopment. In the end another old adage comes to mind: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
February 24, 2010, 12:21 amED Maven says:
Did you say $80 million was wasted? Hah! That was then. This is now. $100 to $130 is more like it, and I have seen informed estimates of as much as $160 million. And that does not include the forgone taxes on the 91-acre razed site that have not ben collected since 2000.
February 24, 2010, 12:36 amRandy says:
Jagermeister: “We just don’t want to have to pay for other people’s peccadilloes, or have it paraded forcibly before our faces.”
Well, I would love to charge you for dating my boyfriend, but I don’t see that happening any time soon, so I think you are safe. As to having it paraded forcibly before your faces, you are free to look the other way when you see me kissing my b/f, just as I am free to look away when you kiss your girlfriend. Deal?
“Even those people who are morally opposed to them (such as Roman Catholics) are content with just trying for moral suasion within their own flock.”
I wish. But the Roman Catholic church has spent millions over the past few years opposing each and every gay rights legislation out there, whether it is to ban discrimination in housing and employment, or, most recently, the public referendum on banning same sex marriage in Maine (even while they closed churches due to lack of funds). In addition, the Mormon church, also very conservative, was the major donor to the Yes on 8 campaign in CA to revoke the right for gays to marry.
Ricardo: “he point is that there are indeed conservatives out there who think Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas were decided incorrectly.”
Indeed, Peter Sprague form the Focus on the Family, an influential conservative organization, recently said on Chris Matthews that he thinks gays should be jailed. And many conservatives helped Uganda draft their proposed legislation that would execute gays.
February 24, 2010, 12:40 amRandy says:
Matt: “One would think that a city council’s ability to alter or repeal an ordinance would be common knowledge, but in fact the Missoula city council is considering narrowing their historical preservation code as we speak.”
Thanks for the cite, but I don’t see how it’s germane to the issue. The article says the preservation law enjoys wide support from the people that are affected. So — I guess we know what’s best for them, and that means no preservation laws? That can’t possibly be your position, is it?
Jagermeister: “I bring this up because many “historic preservationists” are quick to point out that districts designated for “historic preservation” typically have property values rise faster than their unpreserved surroundings. But, seeing that their good fortune comes at the expense of their neighbor’s freedom of action, wouldn’t this be considered a form of rent seeking?”
So — rising property values are now a *bad* thing? And how does it come at the expense of their neighbors? Are you suggesting that neighborhoods that don’t have historic preservation laws decline in value *because* next door they have the restrictions? I don’t think so. And if the people within the district agree to limit their freedom of action, what’s wrong with that? I don’t see any difference with home owners’ associations that prohibit changes to houses through deed restrictions.
If you don’t want to live in an historically protected neighborhood, you don’t have to. In any case, the limitation of action is usually limited to exterior changes — you can do what you want with the interior.
February 24, 2010, 12:53 amJ. Aldridge says:
This is a simple problem for the people of Connecticut to rectify if they so choose by simply amending the constitution to specifically define what constitutes “public use” and what does not.
Enough said about this entire issue.
February 24, 2010, 1:58 amJagermeister says:
Mike and Ricardo:
Yes, I did misread your comment Mike, as suggesting conservative hypocrisy in their views of the unconstitutionality of various blue laws vs. property laws. Thank you for clarifying what you meant about unconstitutional and bad law not being equivalent in some cases, but not others. In my defense, it was easy to misread.
And thank you to Ricardo for the link to the Catholic Education Center’s commentary on Griswold v. Connecticut.
Even so, I still think that you paint with a broad brush, Mike, when you simply write “conservatives”. Perhaps you could consider further qualifying your labels to make it more clear. After all, I’m sure that the vast majority of people who consider themselves conservatives are completely ignorant of the subtleties of Griswold.
So let me ask a question of you. Assuming as a hypothetical for the moment that Griswold was poorly decided, and also acknowledging that there has been a gradual trend in the country to a greater recognition of individual liberty, are there other, more solid, grounds for recognizing a constitutional right to liberty in the practice of one’s private life, or are we stuck with the often attacked “privacy” rational advanced from Griswold up through Roe?
February 24, 2010, 2:59 amJagermeister says:
What? I am appalled, and suggest that you are applying the label “conservatives” inaccurately. I’m not sure to whom you refer, but I would think anyone aiding in legislation to execute people for their consensual private practices is not a “conservative” in the normal sense of the word. Fanatic seems the least harsh I could say.
February 24, 2010, 3:06 amJohn Skookum says:
Whenever I hear of eminent domain used to transfer property from its original owner to another private interest with more political juice, I make a quiet reaffirmation to myself.
If ever I find myself on a jury trying such a property owner for putting a bullet between the eyes of a gooberment man enforcing such injustice, or the thieving new owner for whose benefit it is done, I swear that jury will be hung. I will lie through my teeth during voir dire, and vote for nullification, and never back down.
February 24, 2010, 5:35 amJohn Skookum says:
Let me just say that hundreds of thousands of people now holding on to gainful employment due to Houston’s embrace of private property rights don’t give a shit for zoning laws, urban planning, or your sarcastic comment.
February 24, 2010, 5:39 amSayUncle » Kelo Update says:
[...] that trouble for nothing: New London May Build Townhouses on Site of Kelo [...]
February 24, 2010, 9:06 amProf. S. says:
To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting he should be banned (assuming this isn’t a repeated issue). My point was more along the lines that I thought it was interesting that we just had a post about keeping it civil and the first comment on this post was this vapid tirade.
February 24, 2010, 9:39 amOctavian says:
The exact same thing happened in the Poletown case in Michigan. GM came along and used eminent domain to wipe out a thriving middle class, racially integrated neighborhood so that it could build a plant that was eventually mothballed when GM failed to compete with more nimble competitors. The neighborhood/shuttered GM plant is empty today and looks like a scene out of “Escape from New York.”
February 24, 2010, 9:41 amAnonsters says:
If you want to use words in your own special little way, you are entitled to do so, but don’t be surprised when other people use the same words differently.
The entire religious right is described as “conservative.” Maybe you think that’s a bad label for them. Maybe it is. But that’s how they’re described.
IOW, stop being obtuse.
February 24, 2010, 10:16 amrobc says:
Not novel at all. What if Ms Kelo’s neighbor had WANTED to sell to Pfizer. Then the historic district tag would have been a limitation on property rights in the other direction.
How about we let property owner’s determine what to do with their property?
February 24, 2010, 10:32 amSF Alpha Geek says:
And to think that we’re probably on the same side here – my comment, while sarcastic, was intended to convey that a good bit of Houston’s economic well being (compared to, say, Detroit) is a result of their support of private property rights – you see, the remark is amusing because Houston is thriving and they don’t have zoning, or much in the way of urban planning at all.
And here I was thinking that all the humorless pricks were on the liberal side . . .
February 24, 2010, 10:52 amRandy says:
“The Stillmans said they would develop most of the townhouses for a “relatively upscale rental market” and would pursue marketing analysis to fine-tune the parameters of the development.”
Of course. The tipoff was the ‘peak roof’ and small porches which just scream ‘cute and adorable.’ Who builds townhouses that are relatively down scale, or for the working poor? And I thought home ownership was better than renting?
I’m all in favor of market based housing, but my question is what happened to the people who were forced to sell their houses and leave? I would suspect that they are dispersed around the city, and no on in particular cares.
It’s striking how this is so similar to the urban renewal ‘slum clearance’ of the 50s and 60s that broke up poor neighborhoods and scattered the families around the city.
February 24, 2010, 10:57 amSuperSkeptic says:
Randy, do you not see any inconsistency between your position that if somebody is looking around they can just ignore you kissing your boyfriend, but if they are selling property of some sort – then they must be forced to sell it to you by law?
February 24, 2010, 11:26 amAllan Walstad says:
By analogy, that takes us right back to sexual freedom. If a law saying what you can and can’t do with your private parts enjoys wide support from the people that are affected, it can’t possibly be your position that no such laws are allowed, can it?
Oh but of course, I see–such laws would NOT enjoy the support of ALL those affected, would they? And the same applies to the “historic preservation” case. You can’t have it both ways, Randy.
Bigotville: love it or leave it?
February 24, 2010, 11:28 amEminent Domain Abuses | Update on the Results of the Kelo Takings » The Golden Gate says:
[...] Somin has an update on the regrettable Kelo v City of New London decision ::: and its aftermath: For years, the site of the property condemned in the controversial Kelo v. City of New London [...]
February 24, 2010, 11:34 amMike Schilling says:
So let me ask a question of you. Assuming as a hypothetical for the moment that Griswold was poorly decided, and also acknowledging that there has been a gradual trend in the country to a greater recognition of individual liberty, are there other, more solid, grounds for recognizing a constitutional right to liberty in the practice of one’s private life, or are we stuck with the often attacked “privacy” rational advanced from Griswold up through Roe?
Very interesting question, which I don’t begin to have the background to answer, except to note that the emerging standards you posit are irrelevant to an “original intent” reading of the Constitution.
February 24, 2010, 12:30 pmMatt says:
Ugh…Randy, you said that a historical preservation law would have prevented the Kelo taking.
I disagreed, and argued that if New London really wanted to condemn the property (which it did), then it could have simply repealed or made an exception to any such law.
Then you asked whether cities could do that, and wanted “evidence”.
Then I said yes, and provided an example of Missoula considering doing that very thing.
If you think by this discussion that my “position” is that we have “no preservation laws” then you are mistaken.
February 24, 2010, 2:58 pmmischief says:
Given that they are being forcibly evicted, why not? Why should those who evict them get all the benefit and the evicted all the detriment? New London claimed that it needed more taxes. These would accrue to the benefit of those still resident; those evicted could benefit only if they bought a new house in town.
February 24, 2010, 3:44 pmstraightarrow says:
How about Phuktover Place?
February 24, 2010, 7:32 pmBill Twist says:
A historic preservation law wouldn’t have prevented the neighbor from selling the home, or indeed even selling it to Pfizer. It would have just been a limitation on how the owners of the property, whoever they may be, could physically modify the property.
Not that I’m a big fan of limitations on property owners, just that laws like that don’t prevent an owner from selling the property if they so desire. I’m with John Skookum though: I’ll hang any jury I’m on rather than see someone get convicted of a crime for trying to keep their property from being forceably taken by the government and transfered to another private entity.
February 25, 2010, 11:04 amMike Jesse says:
Constitution Dr.
February 25, 2010, 11:30 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jeffnolan: Memba the Kelo decision? Pfizer was gonna built a HQ in New London, CT… now the city is going to build condos instead http://bit.ly/9cPceS...
February 26, 2010, 12:08 pmvladimir ashworth says:
Prior to Kelo, the pink structure now known as the Kelo House was run-down and purchased by Avner Gregory, a long time resident and real estate investor in New London, who renovated the house and sold it for around 225.000 in the early eighties to another investor. Although mostly new and cheaply renovated, it had commanding views of the New London Harbor. After two years, Kelo purchased it for 125,000. Kelo did not do a thing to the house except build a rear porch and scatter found objects on every inch of the property. Flags, signs, plastic flowers, broken chairs, pots galore,and granite blocks littered the exterior walls, entrance,roof and rear porch! It looked worse than any junk yard you have ever seen!! As the house was sited next to a Waste treatment Center, it also smelled worse than any junk yard you have ever smelled ! Guess who bought the house after Kelo redeemed her interest in the property to the State of CT ? Avner Gregory. He most likely didn’t pay anything to get the house back into his name , but had to pay to move the house to a lot he owns on Franklin street. He has done a fantastic job with it, but it does not resemble the house as it was during the Kelo tenure except for the color which has remained pink. Kudos to Mr.Gregory for preserving a slice of regretful New London History.
August 6, 2010, 12:25 am