Kelo v. New London: Too Dangerous to Discuss?
Disclaimer: The views that I express here are mine alone, and do not reflect the views of the Lake Anne Village Advocates, of which I am a member.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a local government can take private property from "A" and give it to "B" if it thinks that "B" might generate more tax revenue with it. I'm appalled. The argument comes down to what the constitutional meaning of "public use" is, and Their Honors decided, 5-4, that economic improvement alone is sufficient to justify a taking. Any time there's a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, I can only conclude that intelligent people can disagree, but on this issue, I am firmly with the side that lost. As I'm a Libertarian, that's no surprise. I honestly do not believe (and haven't heard from anyone who does) that our revitalization project is at all likely to go down that road. Basically, we're too rich...they'd never do it to us.
Some say we shouldn't talk about it. While the exercise may be unnecessarry for people who already know everything, I think it might be valuable.
Some of my neighbors have suggested that even discussing the issues raised by the Kelo case in the context of Lake Anne's revitalization has no value, will not contribute to the effort, and can only be divisive and counter-productive. They reason that most people do not understand the issues. In acknowledgment of their concerns I will make an effort to explain why I think it's relevant. Here too, intelligent people can disagree.
Presumably, everyone who is interested in this process either reads or watches the news. The obvious parallels between the widely covered Kelo case and our own situation should be clear to all of us. Given these obvious parallels, I think it's worthy of discussion. In fact, given the extent to which the situation in Kelo and our own are similar, I think it would be a bit strange if we didn't discuss it. There are big differences, to be sure, and I share what I believe is the widely held view that condemnation of any local property is not on the table and is unlikely in the extreme. But the Kelo case presents us with an opportunity to start somewhere, and I believe that we are smart enough and civilized enough not to get all hysterical about it.
Discussing the implications of this decision is, in my view, appropriate for a group of people who have an expressed interest in economic revitalization in the context of an economically distressed area.
The Opinion of the Court in the Kelo case is here, you can judge for yourself, and please share your thoughts.
2 Comments:
According to the majority opinion, New London officials "were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference," Stevens wrote. "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."
Sounds familiar. Who says this is not relevant? "Neighbors?" I want names.
Hi Anonymous,
I really don't think "who" is important. I'm not trying to out anyone. There's a chance they will speak for themselves. Their expressed concern about being divisive is a legitimate concern. I don't think that "naming" people furthers the conversation any, and I do not want to be divisive. I do want to have an open conversation about issues (like this one) that I think are relevant. So on to that.
The portion of the opinion you quote does seem to illustrate the obvious parallels I mentioned between the Kelo case and our own situation. The differences that I think are important are the level of economic trouble the areas in question are in (that part of New London a lot, us not so much). Also, I believe there is a good chance that the various property owners here will work things out in a way that protects all of their interests and permits a cooperative development to go forward.
I also think that the best way to allay the fears of anyone who might think that there are evil developers manipulating the county to Condemn their property is to have an open conversation about it...not to imply that they are too dumb to understand the issues, which is what I think the "don't talk about it" crowd is implying.
And if you want "names", which I think is silly, you should at least use your own.
Post a Comment
<< Home