Another thought on Kelo
Posted by Peter W. Schramm
John Hinderaker, perhaps surprisingly, argues that it is far from clear that the Kelo decision was wrongly decided. You be the judge of his reasoning, but also see Richard Epstein.
Update
Ken Masugi responds to Hinderaker, with some good links.
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Yeah, John’s way off.
Basically he’s saying that liberals weilding power on high is bad, but we can do a better job.
Take a hike. I noticed that neither The Weekly Standard nor NRO ran many stories against Kelo.
Well no wonder. Now their in power.
POWER OVER INDIVIDUALS IS THE PROBLEM.
You can not fix it from up high. Restore the proper balance and the cities will fix themselves.
Pardon my poor grammer.
Should we also pardon your spelling?
Plaese... please.
I wonder what Batman would do if confronted with the Kelo decision??
John Hinderaker -
. . . no municipality in America could condemn any property in order to carry out an "economic development" project. This would have the practical effect of making such projects virtually impossible.
Suddenly the marketplace REQUIRES government manipulation.
John Hinderaker -
". . . no municipality in America could condemn any property in order to carry out an "economic development" project. This would have the practical effect of making such projects virtually impossible."
Suddenly the marketplace REQUIRES government manipulation.
I read this piece, and I have to say it did make me feel a bit better about Kelo. Nonetheless, I think the court should have stuck with the original 1950s ruling that allowed ED in cases of "urban blight." I disagree with Hinderaker that if you wait until something is blighted it will be too late to jump-start development. In fact, bulldozing perfectly functional neighborhoods may further sterilize an already sterile inner city...the whole problem has been getting people to stay in the city (the state of their residences is of lesser concern). Businesses generally follow the population, so anchoring working and middle-class people around downtown is critical. Condemning their "organic" neighborhoods and replacing them with edifices doesn’t strike me as very smart, and more to the point, allowing non-blighted neighborhoods to be ED’ed creates a slippery slope that directly threatens property rights. We need to recall all the "white elephants" that were created by Urban Renewal in the 1950s and 60s...not many of those projects succeeded in revitalizing downtown areas (but they did succeed in destroying thousands of reasonably-priced housing units).
Too right - one has ony to look at Columbus Ohio