Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January 3rd, 2010

Ever since the Supreme Court’s odious Kelo decision, which allowed a city in Connecticut to seize a woman’s home for the benefit of a politically-connected big corporation, there has been a deep concern that this would open the door to more examples of government-sanctioned theft. George Will is particularly (and appropriately) vicious in his analysis of how corrupt politicians in New York are seeking to steal private property to benefit a rich developer:

The fight involves an especially egregious example of today’s eminent domain racket. The issue is a form of government theft that the Supreme Court encouraged with its worst decision of the last decade — one that probably will be radically revised in this one. The Atlantic Yards site, where 10 subway lines and one railway line converge, is the center of the bustling Prospect Heights neighborhood of mostly small businesses and middle-class residences. Its energy and gentrification are reasons why 22 acres of this area — the World Trade Center site is only 16 acres — are coveted by Bruce Ratner, a politically connected developer collaborating with the avaricious city and state governments. To seize the acres for Ratner’s use, government must claim that the area — which is desirable because it is vibrant — is “blighted.” …The condo of Daniel Goldstein, his wife and year-old daughter, which cost Goldstein $590,000 in 2003, is on part of the land where Ratner’s $4.9 billion project would be built — with the assistance of more than $1 billion in corporate welfare from the state and city governments, which are drowning in red ink. The Goldsteins’ building would not seem blighted to anyone not paid to see blight for the convenience of the payers. Which is of constitutional significance. …Enter Ratner, with plans to build a huge complex of high-rise residences, commercial properties and a basketball arena for the NBA’s New Jersey Nets, which he bought. The city and state governments salivated at the thought of new revenues — perhaps chimerical — to waste. The problem was, and is, that people live and work where Ratner wants to build. So blight had to be discovered. It duly was, by a firm that specializes in such discoveries. New York’s highest court ratified that finding, 6-1. But a week later, Columbia University, which has plans for a $6.3 billion expansion in Manhattan, was stymied in its attempt to wield the life-shattering power of eminent domain against several local businesses that do not want to be shattered. A state court held, 3-2, that condemnation proceedings had been unconstitutional. The court said the blight designation was “mere sophistry”: “Even a cursory examination of the study reveals the idiocy of considering things like unpainted block walls or loose awning supports as evidence of a blighted neighborhood.” The idiocy was written on Columbia’s behalf by the same firm the Empire State Development Corporation hired to find blight at the Brooklyn site. Both Columbia and Ratner are operating in partnership with the ESDC, an arm of the state government. Both Columbia’s and Ratner’s attempts at seizing property are “pretextual takings,” using trumped-up accusations of blight to concoct a spurious “public use” for a preconceived project.

Read Full Post »

Let’s give some credit to the Cornhusker state. As John Fund reports in the Wall Street Journal voters are overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare – even though their state would get a big pile of money from taxpayers in the other 49 states. Meanwhile, the Senator who is trying to deliver the loot, Senator Nelson, is trailing a likely opponent by a two-to-one margin. What this shows is that Americans (and especially folks from Nebraska) generally want what is best for the nation, not politicians who try to maximize the redistribution to their states:

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that if he were running for re-election today, Mr. Nelson would lose to Nebraska’s GOP Governor David Heineman by a stunning 61% to 30%. Only three years ago, Mr. Nelson won his current term with a solid 64% of the vote. Clearly, the senator’s fall in public esteem is a direct reaction to his having voted for the health care bill as part of a deal in which Nebraska was exempted from the costs of new federal Medicaid mandates. The ObamaCare bill was already unpopular enough in Nebraska but became even more so when state residents discovered they would be saddled with it anyway, plus exposed to national ridicule over Mr. Nelson’s sweetheart deal. Now 53% strongly oppose the bill, while another 11% somewhat oppose it. Only 17% favor the deal that Mr. Nelson struck in order to vote for the bill.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,512 other followers

%d bloggers like this: