Comments on: Kelo Redux: Second Circuit Upholds Use of Eminent Domain to Seize New York Homes for Private Development

By: Tom Ray

Tom Ray — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:23:34 +0000

So how is this stadium project coming along now? Pfizer bailed out of New London after they kicked out Kelo and the others. Are the Nets and Bloomberg going to leave a similar brownscape monument to government planning and eminent domain abuse?

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:31:34 +0000

Thank you, Patty.

By: Patty C

Patty C — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:24:15 +0000

Briefly, RC…

Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Kennedy
Dissent by: O’Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Dissent by: Thomas

U.S. Const. amend. V
Eminent Domain

“… The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial. The majority opinion, by Justice Stevens, found that it was appropriate to defer to the city’s decision that the development plan had a public purpose, saying that “the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue.” Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not “of primary benefit to . . . the developer” and that if that was the case the plan might have been impermissible. In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” She argued that the decision eliminates “any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively [deletes] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:43:24 +0000

I remember hearing and reading conservative pundits railing at the Kelo decision as an example of poor judicial judgement by the liberal thinkers on the Court. Now, I consider myself quite liberal, but I believe the Kelo decision was very, very wrong. I don’t remember who decided which way (from Deeply Worried’s post I see Kennedy and Ginsburg) and how the majority justified it. Could someone please briefly remind us all.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:48:59 +0000

I agree with JT that Kelo was wrongly decided. I eagerly look forward to Ginsburg or Kennedy switching their votes.

By: Hamilton Fish

Hamilton Fish — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:27:02 +0000

The concept of more valuable is of course, debatable. Sports arenas in urban centers have a mixed history of prosperity. When a stadium or arena is built in an area of a city that is either downtrodden or otherwise not developed, it has tended to help spur future development as a NEW community springs up around the urban center. Examples of this include both Chicago and Washington DC in the past 10-15 years.

However, when a stadium or arena is built in an already bustling part of the city, it has not always bode well for the neighborhood. For that matter, any urban renewal project in an area that is ALREADY undergoing revitalization will more like than not adversely affect the process already underway in that neighborhood.

For more information on the struggle, you can check out Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn at http://www.dddb.net