Heave-Ho to Kelo

by Don Boudreaux on November 13, 2009

in Law, Man of System, Other People's Money, Property Rights

Here’s something to chew on for those who trust politicians with power. (HT Fletcher Mangum)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

49 comments Share

{ 49 comments }

Guest November 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm

I’d be angry if I were surprised. I’m way to damn cynical.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 5:58 pm

your cynicism just indicates that you’re firmly rooted in reality.

Guest November 13, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Maybe, but it firmly root me in knowledge of grammar. “To” vs “too”. That’s painfully embarrassing.

Guest November 13, 2009 at 7:13 pm

..won’t firmly…

Jesus, I need to proof read.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 9:13 pm: Don’t worry about it. It’s Friday. For me, it’s usually a miracle I can still type by the end of the week.
mesaeconoguy November 13, 2009 at 11:41 pm: The wonders of the new Cafe hosting platform allow you to edit your posts ex post.

dullgeek November 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm

From the linked article:

Now [New London will] have to hope that some other company will want to buy the vacant lot where Susette Kelo’s home and those of her neighbors once sat.

I think it’s worse than that. Now New London will have to hope that they can restore confidence in any private buyers. I personally, would not be willing to buy property in New London unless:

a) I was able to get rock solid assurance that this kind of thing wouldn’t happen again
b) The price of the property dropped low enough to compensate for the risk

Seriously, I wonder if Pfizer, after having won the case thought, “Are we really going to put a lot of investment into an area where this kind of thing can happen? What if it happens to us?”

I think that New London has screwed itself in this deal. I suspect the result will be that other neighboring communities pass legislation that clarifies where eminent domain can and can’t be used in order to attract property buyers. Perhaps New London will do that, too.

lukas November 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm: Ah, but stuff like that only happens to little people.
mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 1:05 am: Wait, there’s a New London now?

Better sell all those Dickens books….

tw November 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Earlier this month, the citizens of Texas passed an amendment to their state constitution restricting the power of eminent domain; it was drafted/passed in direct response to the outrageous Kelo decision to try to make sure the same thing wouldn’t happen there. Hopefully it wasn’t written and worded by the politicians with loopholes in place for them to exploit (like MnM, I’m too cynical and too skeptical).

As for this particular article, I do find the irony sweet, and for some reason, can picture the feral cats roaming around the area.

tw November 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm: One bit of parallel irony comes to mind:

In “Roger & Me”, Michael Moore pokes fun at the politicans in Flint who decide their road to prosperity is to construct an auto museum/Auto World where an auto factory once stood. Needless to say, that was a white elephant from the day it opened and a massive waste of what tax revenue they had left at the time.

And yet, Moore today is advocating for more and more government control of the economy, bashing capitalism in his last two “documentaries” (quotes definitely intended).

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 5:47 pm

That’s the problem with having some sort of legal-theory justification that has to do mental summer-saults to make the case. These people justify this sort of thing, convince themselves with an internally consistent logical framework for why it’s OK, and then never check to see whether it is actually a good thing or not. It’s an “ends justify the means” approach whereby any sort of legalese argument will do to get the result they want – but it’s even WORSE than that more pedestrian ethical fallacy, because no effort is put into answering the question “is this end something positive” – all the effort is put into making an internally consistent, but constitutionally oblivious legal argument.I get the same impression reading about the justification for Roe v. Wade. In that case I like the outcome much better, but the argument they use to get there is convoluted and (to my ears at least) blatantly constructed to get to the end they were looking for.

Mark November 13, 2009 at 6:45 pm

“In that case (Roe v. Wade) I like the outcome much better”

Killing an unwanted child at will? Nice. The nicey-nice tone you write with hides a real monstrous streak.

Guest November 13, 2009 at 7:14 pm: Special case ad hominem. That was a little unfair.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 7:56 pm

“that has to do mental summer-saults” Er, DK, is this summer-saults some kind of mental laxative for little young guys?

Could you have meant somersaults, by chance?

>
>
>
>

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 8:03 pm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/summersault
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/somersaults

For those of you who are curious and are not willing to invest as much time in a quick google search as you are in a substanceless come-back.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Summersault as a variant of somersault is all well and good, junior, but what is a summer-saults, is it that mental laxative for little young guys? I asked about

Guest November 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm

“Somersault” comes from two Latin words meaning “leap” and “above”. I guess, technically speaking, hyphenating the word isn’t incorrect, but it’s certainly unorthodox.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 9:27 pm: I’d be happy to go as far as saying incorrect as well… and inconsequential… and trivial. But most definitely incorrect.
Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 10:36 pm: Hyperventilating the word may be a breathless way of writing it, but no dictionary in use in AAAAAAmerica does it.

I give DK points for coming up with the variant, but I prescribe mental laxative for his hyperventialting.

Zat ok wid ju?

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Nice illustration of government planning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h7V3Twb-Qk

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 9:27 pm

An excellent cautionary tale for any Cafe Hayek readers who have ever advocated that the government build entire cities.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 11:11 pm: Given the generally dismal results of even minor things like government sponsored or government created neighborhoods (witness the plethora of slums that the federal government has built or sponsored since the 1960s) it should to be a cautionary tale about the limits of government generally. Governments can’t build neighborhoods, much less cities.
Anonymous November 14, 2009 at 12:27 am: Hey slick, know any of those. I sure the fu.k don’t. Oops, forgot muriduck, Gil, and DK.

Anonymous November 14, 2009 at 12:25 am

Holy shit man, that’s cool!

Has anyone said this before, “Americans don’t have anything to fear but socialism and central planning……heeeeeellllllllo Obama, Pelosie, or Reid, or Kennedy (oh crap forgot he is dead), or Kerry, or Oberman, or Matthews, or muirduck, or Lennin (he is dead but his disciples number in the mindless millions), or how about Mao himself…..he would love it..another 5 or 10 or 20 year plan.

LOL

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 8:22 pm

Well, the end result is what one should expect from government “planning.” The country is littered with projects like this.

David Shaw November 13, 2009 at 9:00 pm

“the argument they use to get there is convoluted and (to my ears at least) blatantly constructed to get to the end they were looking for.”

Welcome to the last 80 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence!

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Well, Danny, when the state decides to interfere in reproductive decisions, to overturn those laws I guess you have to present an argument as tortured as the law itself.

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws and the more tortured and entertaining the arguments.

mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 1:08 am: Aaahhhh, I love the smell of a little Tacitus on Friday.
Anonymous November 14, 2009 at 1:54 pm: I have a serious and I believe obvious rhetorical question.

If we cease to resist the state in its interference in human reproductivity through such things as laws on birth control, abortion, and possible into limits on numbers of off spring; and, we grant state the powers of such interference either willingly or in acquiesence, how do we resist or protest when the state takes the next step and begins to dictate, support, or assist retroactive birth control, which correctly describes partial birth abortion, in my mind. But, beyond partial birth abortion as retroactive birth control, how about that baby whose limiting flaws didn’t become observable until months or years have gone by?

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Welcome to their reading of the commerce clause, etc. since FDR’s thuggish tactics against the Supreme Court.

Anonymous November 13, 2009 at 11:47 pm

Hello?

What matters is intentions, not results.

Where have you been?

Anonymous November 14, 2009 at 12:28 am

Intentions? Intentions, hmmmm? Intentions, well damn man why aren’t intentions good enough?

Some 40% of American believes in intentions, ya know.

mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 12:38 am

Intentions and aggressive branding (hope & change, “vital stimulus,” Nobel “prize,” etc.)

Anonymous November 14, 2009 at 12:40 am

Evidently, Nobel peace prizes are also awarded more on the basis of intentions than actual accomplishments.

mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 12:55 am: Slightly ironic, given the liberal judicial activist erosion of legal intent (and contract law, and private property [see above] and………)

Kevin November 14, 2009 at 3:11 am

The eminent domainers actually don’t even have to do any gymnastics anymore. The courts pretty much definitionally punt the public use concept to the politicians sponsoring the condemnation. Good lawyers don’t even bother to fight it anymore because the energy is best spent negotiating compensation. Se this pdf for details.

Gil November 14, 2009 at 5:33 am

Did they have to? The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Consitution simply says “due process” and “just compensation” when it comes to emiment domain.

Kevin November 14, 2009 at 1:18 pm: I suppose the judicial branch doesn’t “have to,” but the principal ofstare decisis makes it difficult for an individual judge to side with the property owner and very easy for the eminent domain people to find judges who will approve of their activities. I think it would take a decision by SCOTUS reversing its position in Kelo, and I see no reason to believe the court will be getting more friendly to liberty any time soon.

mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 6:53 am

Chilling. Beyond frightening.

mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 3:41 am

Dude, just shut up.

It’s called “unintended consequences,” judicial stupidity, and “underutilised resources.”

You’re a moron.

Anonymous November 14, 2009 at 2:42 pm

I’m not a moron – don’t call me that. Unintended consequences? What exactly do you suppose was “unintended” about Kelo? Do you think they just mistakenly ruled against propety rights? They knew exactly what they were doing. Stupidity? Perhaps, but I doubt they came to that decision because they weren’t intelligent enough to come to the right one. I have no idea what underutilized resources have to do with it.

Sam Grove November 14, 2009 at 3:48 pm: I lean more toward corrupt rather than stupid, though there is a certain kind of stupidity underlying corruption.

mesaeconoguy November 14, 2009 at 1:22 am