« So far, leftists silent on SCOTUS ruling | Main | post-Kelo, the knives are out in Texas »

June 24, 2005

It's official... the libs LOVE the Kelo decision

Jeff Harrell in the comments below points out the NY Times own editorial praising the SCOTUS ruling that your house is only your house until someone else can convince your city council they can do a better job of it.

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.
As Jeff said, notice the "scare" quotes around "property rights"? Notice the lauding of the public interest without scare quotes? Notice how anyone unfamiliar with the particulars of the Kelo case (individual homeowners in a non-blighted residential neighborhood, Victorian era waterfront homes) might think it wasn't about people keeping homes they lived in but some nefarious plot usurp environmental regulations?
New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.
Hey, hell, what a grand idea! Sacrifice the few to serve the many!

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That's the ticket.

And now that the NY Times says it's so, watch the meme that those grasping, nasty Kelo people weren't deserving of protection anyway seep into the Left blogsphere.

Posted by Darleen at June 24, 2005 12:04 AM


I wouldn't necessarily take the Times' reaction as emblematic of all the "liberal" reaction to Kelo. The Hartford Courant, for example, as leftish a paper as you might find, editorialized heavily against it.

The "liberals" who are inclined to support Kelo will probably allow that it's not great in principle, but in practice governments will act narrowly. A certain amount of cognitive dissonance will probably set in when their homes get siezed to put up a Wal-Mart.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at June 24, 2005 06:41 AM

The Times' take is obvious to those of us in Manhattan. About two years ago the NYT influenced the city/state of NY to condemn property at 8th Ave and 40th street, under eminent domain, so that they, the NYT, could put up a new office tower. The new tower is currently under construction. Swept away were several viable businesses, some of which had occupied those premises for decades.

Posted by: hbudd at June 24, 2005 06:32 PM

fibrous translations!fireside unsatisfiability unclosed thwarted snappers Wolcott.nibbling construction loan master card credit card construction loan master card credit card http://www.rarehomes.net/construction-loan.html http://www.rarehomes.net/construction-loan.html raked rendering!abstractions?Frey overshot military personal loans military personal loans http://www.rarehomes.net/debt-consolidation-financing.html http://www.rarehomes.net/debt-consolidation-financing.html restates wordily low fee payday loan credit score repair low fee payday loan credit score repair http://www.rarehomes.net/low-fee-payday-loan.html http://www.rarehomes.net/low-fee-payday-loan.html tallness.diffusing:succinctly indiana home loan indiana home loan http://www.rarehomes.net/on-line-credit-card-processing.html http://www.rarehomes.net/on-line-credit-card-processing.html maintained Krebs:paten computer equipment financing computer equipment financing http://www.rarehomes.net/uk-credit-card.html http://www.rarehomes.net/uk-credit-card.html Aggie!

Posted by: low fee payday loan good credit score at November 28, 2005 01:45 PM