« It came from the Blogosphere... | Main | Times columnist Vecsey: Nets should move to Newark »
November 11, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA
The Wall Street Journal, Editorial, Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab.
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.
The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.
That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted 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." So much for that.
Castle Coalition Press Release, The End of an Eminent Domain Error: Pfizer Closes in New London
Land Taken in Infamous Kelo Supreme Court Case Remains Empty More Than Four Years After Ruling
Pfizer, Inc., announced today that the company will be closing its former research and development headquarters in New London, Conn. This was a project that involved massive corporate welfare and led to the abuse of eminent domain that ultimately bulldozed the home of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London.
This was the same bogus development plan that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question when the property owners of New London pleaded to have their homes spared from the wrecking ball. Justices mentioned that there was a plan in place, and that so long as lawmakers who are looking to use eminent domain for someone’s private gain had a plan, the courts would wash their hands. Now, more than four years after the redevelopment scheme passed constitutional muster—allowing government to take land from one private owner only to hand that land over to another private party who happens to have more political influence—the plant that had been the magnet for the development is closing its doors and the very land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood remains barren to all but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.
New York, of course, is one of just seven states that have not reformed eminent domain laws. It's on the table in Yonkers, among other places.
LoHud.com, Yonkers may seize downtown properties through eminent domain
Two city development agencies are preparing to forcibly take 11 downtown properties from their owners for a massive redevelopment project.
The New Main Street Development Corporation voted Thursday to ask the Yonkers Industrial Development Agency to begin eminent domain actions against the owners of 11 properties that NMSDC officials claim have been unresponsive to their purchase offers. Eminent domain is a legal mechanism that allows governments to force property owners to sell so the land can be used for a greater public benefit.
"It continues to be our goal to reach voluntary purchase agreements with as many property owners as possible," said Ellen Lynch, the YIDA president, whose agency approved the NMSDC request Friday.
Really?
Nader Sayegh, an attorney representing the owner of the gas station at Elm and School streets, said the NMSDC's attorneys have not followed up with him about negotiating a fair price, even though he reached out to them.
Posted by eric at November 11, 2009 9:29 AM