« Sports debate between Zirin ("The socializing of debt and the privatizing of profit") and Leitch ("I know I am willfully putting on blinders") | Main | Mindboggling Reveals: Atlantic Yards Arena Team Unveils Public Plaza Design »
September 28, 2010
The Litigious Legacy of Kelo
The Wall Street Journal, Editorial
Even in the best of circumstances, it is contentious when the government uses eminent domain to take someone's property. When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy became the deciding vote in the 2005 Kelo decision—which allowed governments to seize private property for economic development—he guaranteed that contentiousness would be raised to a whole new level. In a Texas appeals court in Dallas today, we can see the high costs of Mr. Kennedy's concurrence.
Today the court will hear an argument that a defamation case should be tossed. This case involves a book that was itself the product of a contentious eminent domain battle. In other words, we now have what any sensible person should have expected from Kelo's cavalier approach to the expropriation of private property for economic purposes: an explosion of litigation, neighbor set against neighbor—and taxpayers on the hook for millions in legal fees and project costs.
The defamation suit at issue was brought by a developer against Carla Main and Encounter Books, respectively, the author and publisher of "Bulldozed: 'Kelo,' Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land." The book tells the story of Freeport, a small Texas town whose Economic Development Corporation (EDC) tried to take land from a citizen who didn't want to sell as part of a plan for a new marina. Defending Ms. Main and Encounter is the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm based in Arlington, Va.
Freeport's original plan called for a private marina, with the city working in partnership with Dallas developer H. Walker Royall. When Wright Gore, owner of a local shrimping business, refused to sell land the city wanted, Freeport initiated eminent domain proceedings against him.
The defamation suits are an aftershock, brought by Mr. Royall in response to the bad press he was getting. He complains that when he signed on, the project was not controversial because Mr. Gore had not refused to sell.
When asked in a phone call what he most objects to, he says it is the portrait of him as a developer who wants to "steal somebody else's property and wants to silence anyone who wants to talk about it."
NoLandGrab: And his plan for disproving that characterization is... suing anyone who wants to talk about it? Poor, maligned real estate developers.
Posted by eric at September 28, 2010 1:15 PM