Nice Blog :)

www.FriendsterForum.com

I'm a big fan of Kelo. I think that generally it ought to be possible to force sales by holdouts at market rates, and I'm not averse to thoughtful civic planning, which would be impossible readily available eminent domain. That ranges from public transportation to - why not? - gentrifying declining neighborhoods by putting in Whole Foods, or what have you.

If anything, I don't get the opposition to Kelo. At all. I could see Kelo-rules being considered essential to a well-working real estate market, and what's so great about letting nut-jobs do whatever they want with their property anyway?

I think what scares me most about Kelo is the increased potential for abuse. It's entirely reasonable to believe that local governments will feel empowered by the decision to use eminent domain power more aggressively. As Todd Zywicki pointed out, politicians don't always have thoughtful civic planning as the only consideration in mind.

@David Zaring

If anything, I don't get the opposition to Kelo. At all. I could see Kelo-rules being considered essential to a well-working real estate market, and what's so great about letting nut-jobs do whatever they want with their property anyway?

Uh. You're not a Stalinist and you're kidding, right?

1) Real estate markets, or any markets for that matter work under a unifying principle -- trade. Trade, by definition, is bilaterally beneficial and moreover, voluntary.

Kelo is definitely not.

2) That's the whole point. 'Nut-jobs' can and should do 'whatever they want with their property' since it is THEIR property.

We call that property rights in a democratic capitalistic society.

I'll take a stab at saying why I'm not outraged at Kelo: there's no textual warrant for the opposite result. In particular, there's no basis I'm aware of in the amendment or its "legislative history" for thinking that "public use" means anything other than "something the government wants to do with the land." I'm a liberal, but I don't see why federal courts should invent a right to review of local and state government decisions about land use, particularly where there are other checks on those decisions (e.g., the requirement that compensation be paid, democratic control of local and state governments). If the amendment had said, "and by the way, the government can't turn seized property over to private developers," that would be different.

(And to preempt the trolls: no, being a liberal doesn't mean you think the text of the Constitution doesn't matter. I can distinguish Griswold and Roe from this case twelve ways past Sunday.)

>>"what's so great about letting nut-jobs do whatever they want with their property anyway?"

Dear Committee on the Identification of Nut-Jobs: I would like to submit to a psychiatric review to prevent the taking of my lonely houseplant, “Jeremy,” in the Kelo removal action, Case No AK-47-1917. Should my metal health continue to be of concern, I request that you deem Jeremy “not property” for the purposes of the Kelo removal action on the grounds of Jeremy being non-human companion. See 101 CFR 38(b)-1.

Kate's back!! I knew something was missing around here.

I think I would also like to see a definition of nut-job. I'm a little nervous.

It depends of what you mean by 'liberal'
Read Nathan Newman

Sorry - maybe not nut-jobs. Maybe just "hold-outs." I'd really rather have the city council deciding where the Best Buy is going to be than give veto power to Kate's plant (or cat) lady (or guy).

But that's just me! Some people think that property rights don't exist independently from the value society gives them. Which means that those people - like me and my fellow traveller Josef Stalin - don't have a very difficult time justifying "public" roles in the disposition of "private" property.

Especially when that public role is limited by the political process and rarely used, as is the case with ED.....

I don't have a problem with Kelo either, and was surprised at the reaction. The decision just said that the Constitution permits governments to take property for the public interest, even where the property is handed off to a private party. So, (1) there has to be a public purpose and (2) if a state or local government does something funky, there is always the electoral process (which seems to have been working pretty well on this issue judging by the number of state anti-Kelo laws that have been enacted).

Maybe those of us who have spent time living in New York will see things differently: the cleaned up Times Square would have been difficult or impossible had Kelo come out differently.