Kelo vs. New London was one of the most repulsive, sickening infringements on the right to private property I’ve ever seen and the most egregiously noxious decision by the Supreme Court in decades. In it, the Supreme Court decided that the “benefits” a community reaped from destroying private property in favor of a developer outweighed the rights of private property owners.  In essence, the court decided that the use of eminent domain for economic development didn’t violate the constitutional limits placed on the government, and that it constituted “public use.” 

To me, it means that the government can seize anyone’s property any time some overzealous developer wants to build a Wal Mart.  It’s economic development after all, and according to the Kelo case, that makes it “public use.”

This is worse.

George Will writes:


The Constitution says government may not take private property other than for a “public use.” By “public,” the Framers, who did not scatter adjectives carelessly, meant uses — roads, bridges, parks, public buildings — directly owned or primarily used by the general public. In1954, however, in a case concerning a crime- and infectious disease-ridden section of Washington, D.C., the court expanded the notion of “public use” to include removing “blight.”

Ergo, in order for Bruce Ratner, who wants to build a “complex of high-rise residences, commercial properties and a basketball arena for the NBA’s New Jersey Nets, which he bought,” to develop the area for his own purposes, the Prospect Heights neighborhood – an area filled with small businesses and middle class homes – has to be ruled a “blighted” area.

Daniel Goldstein, who was offered a lot of money for the area by Ratner who hoped to clear everyone out quickly so he could start his project, refused.  It was a matter of principle for him, and he had every right to do so.  It is his property. He bought it, and he did not want to sell. Period. His reasons may seem specious to some, since Ratner had offered him twice what he had paid, but that should not matter. This is his property, and he has the right to refuse for any reason at all.

And he did.

So Ratner had no choice but to hire a company that specializes in declaring an area blighted – even if there’s no blight to be seen – to declare the area blighted and have the government seize Goldstein’s property using eminent domain.

After a six-year fight, the state has begun the final legal steps toseize the family’s condo, using eminent-domain law, and hand it to Ratner’s company.

In November, Goldstein got a letter saying the state planned to pay him $510,000, about $80,000 less than what he paid in 2003.

That’s a fraction of what Ratner was offering years ago, and nowhere near what Goldstein needs to buy a comparable place in the same part of Brooklyn.

Other remaining residents will get even less.

Years ago, Ratner’s representatives offered David Sheets $75,000 to give up his rent-regulated apartment.

He turned them down, in part because they insisted he sign a gag order and stop criticizing the project. “Essentially, they wanted me to sign away my citizenship,” he said.

New York’s highest court upheld the “blight” finding in yet another decision repugnant to the very principles of freedom and property rights on which this nation was founded.

Granted, Goldstein bought his apartment in 2003 - after the plans to develop the area were announced.  He, of course, had the choice not to buy it there, and (Correction by Mr. Goldstein: he apparently bought the place before the plans to build were announced. One of the reports I read was in error)  he also had the choice of selling to Ratner for a much larger amount of money.  But you know what?  Again, none of this should matter. His reasons shouldn’t matter.  He and the other holdouts bought those homes, and they shouldn’t be forced out by a greedy developer and corrupt New York government.

h/t to Dan Mitchell

Advertisement