As conservatives we are of course all watchful for, and suspicious of, overweening state power. Governments do sometimes need to be able to act, though. The Tory in me appreciates what a British Prime Minister (though not a Tory) once called "the smack of firm government," when it's appropriate.Well put.
There are quite large areas of public life where the problem is not the govt doing too much, but govt frustrated in doing anything at all. The state of public works in New York City illustrates the point. It's little short of miraculous when govt here gets ANYTHING done, let alone a major public works project. (Look at the decades-long struggle to set up public toilets for the use of New Yorkers.) Yes, yes, I know, the Connecticut decision involved private development, not public works, but the eminent domain principle apparently comes in to both cases. Consider the paralysis over the World Trade Center site. If use of urban land were not such a tar pit of regulation & litigation, surely a vigorous govt, exercising eminent domain, might have done something with the site by now.
Yay for private property rights and down with govt usurpations. No argument about that as a general principle. When govt needs to act, though, it ought to be able to do so without unnecessary impediments & infinite delays, & private citizens, properly compensated, should yield their rights.
June 26, 2005
A very conservative, pro-Kelo voice.
John Derbyshire on Kelo:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
There are problems with someone being the last holdout and extracting a massively high price, extracting all the benefit from the new use of the land-- that would ensure that improvements don't get done; on the other hand, there are clearly problems with government taking something away for private benefit. There's a proper balance to be struck, but I think that the decision went too far.
On a side note, Mr. Derbyshire is a dissenter here because he is remains, fundamentally, a Tory.
Ann: I think this is one of the few times that when you post on something, I have tended to agree more with the commenters than I do with you. I'm still a bit in the dark as to what your position is here. I've reread your Kelo posts, but I somehow feel you haven't addressed the concerns of those who are objecting to your(?) stance. This post helps somewhat, but perhaps a bit longer blog posting will help?
Just a suggestion.
Twwren: Here's my post on the legal issues in the case. I don't have a precise opinion on whether it was "correct," but I don't think it's a bad decision. I find the outcry overdone and many of the statements about the majority opinion inaccurate, as you can see over there as I try to engage with some of the commenters. There are over 100 comments there, so take a look.
Ron: I am absolutelly not going to write a longer post about Kelo. I'm not going to "litigate" this case with the commenters. Too much, already!
Jonathan: I don't see the charm of having the government own and run everything.
Ann: I respect your lack of desire to 'adjudicate' the commenters! I get facinated when there seems to be such vigourous discussion, but ok, 'Nuff said!
Joe: Hope the Supreme Court knew about the Wilcox shooting. That's the sort of thing that belongs in constitutional interpretation. Really, the courts ought to become involved in micromanaging city government using the Takings Clause -- think that would go well?
Joe: You're changing the facts of the case. The "public use" asserted wasn't just increased tax revenue. The test you say you prefer would write eminent domain out of the law, but eminent domain is an ancient govt power predating the Constitution. As for the Constitution's framers, that is the framers of the Bill of Rights, they did not think they were limiting the power of the states at all, only the federal govt.
Professor Althouse -
Wasn't Kelo just Poletown? Wasn't the decision just Poletown, sans the language that Poletown was a special case? Shouldn't we have been aware that the court would do this - eventually - from the outcome of that case?
Personally, I think both decisions are wrong, and I believe that the Kelo outcry - although overdone because the ruling wasn't that much of a change from the status quo - is a good thing, for it is helping the masses realize how far the court has allowed the government to push this area of law to their advantage.
More power to me: Poletown was overruled in 2004.
Check it out: http://www.ij.org/private_property/michigan/7_31_04pr.html
Justin: Yes, and Poletown is a matter of one state's constitutional law. After Kelo, the states are free to provide more protection in their own law, which is the way the US Constitution's framers thought citizens would be protected from abuse by state and local govt. This is why Kelo can be viewed as a federalism case.
Post a Comment