Bloomberg Speaks Out for Eminent Domain
Mayor Bloomberg came out strongly in support of maintaining the right of cities to seize private property by eminent domain: “You would never build any big thing any place in any big city in this country if you didn’t have the power of eminent domain,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking at a ground-breaking ceremony in Times…
Mayor Bloomberg came out strongly in support of maintaining the right of cities to seize private property by eminent domain:
“You would never build any big thing any place in any big city in this country if you didn’t have the power of eminent domain,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking at a ground-breaking ceremony in Times Square, which was redeveloped in part through government condemnation of private property. “You wouldn’t have a job, neither would anybody else standing here today. None of us would.”
“There are some in Albany and Washington,” Mr. Bloomberg said, who do not “appreciate the crucial importance of eminent domain to our ability to shape our own future. They mistakenly equate it with an abuse of government power, and ignore the benefits that come to us all from responsible development of formerly blighted areas.”
You can see why a Mayor wouldn’t want to give up the power to use eminent domain and there are certainly extreme cases–an entire blighted block with only a single house left on it, for example– where we think the best interests of the community are served by eminent domain, but those instances are so few and far between and the potential for abuse–like tearing down perfectly decent buildings in well-functioning neighborhoods to make way for an arena and condos–so great that we just can’t get comfortable with the concept.
Bloomberg Says Eminent Domain Is Vital [NY Times]
Eminent Domain abuse is obviously a serious issue, and the topic forces us to re-examine the core principles upon which our country was founded.
But Bloomberg’s comment was totally reasonable, and a total compromise. The question shouldn’t be whether Eminent Domain should exist but how to curtail its abuse.
Meanwhile, I don’t live on the handful of properties that will be demolished when the arena goes up. But I do live in one of the gazillion other Brownstones throughout Brooklyn, which will be positively affected by the development, and frankly, I say “DROP THE WRECKING BALL!!!”
I should add some conditions: first, the arena and buildings MUST be tasteful and well thought out. They must attempt to IMPROVE quality of life in Brooklyn. Furthermore, ejected residents should be properly compensated.
I think a lot of the anti-Eminent Domain folks out there really don’t want Brooklyn to change; or don’t want it to progress, at least in the manner it is progressing. But you can’t stop this kind of development, particular in an urban environment in which things move so quickly – so be thankful you enjoyed the time you did here, and if you prefer a more stable, slow moving environment, don’t live in New York City.
answer to the two below:
Cracked, I don’t have a law degree. but i did read the Kelo decision. did you? if not, read it. if so, re-read it.
and David, here is the explanation:
the majority makes it VERY clear that when you have a favored developer (developer driven project) and no legislative planning process (developer driven project) what you have, then, is a violation of the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment.
Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards are the poster child of that combination.
Cracked, you are exactly right, local governments need to determine what public needs justify the use of the takings power. No local government has or will make such a decision for “Atlantic Yards.”
———
Deg- care to explain how you read Kelo as ruling ED @ AY unconstitutional?
Posted by: David at May 3, 2006 04:08 PM
Deg – I think you need to get your law degree renewed. Kleo said that ED for AY is fine. It is unconstitional to use ED to bestow a purely private benefit, but the fact that Ratner stands to make the most money of anyone here does not meant that their are not other “public” benefits. Economic activity and low income housing help AY pass muster for Kelo purposes. In fact Kelo defers to the judgement (good or bad) of local governments to determine what public needs justify the use of the takings power.
Sorry for the multiple postings.
Posted by: Cracked Facade at May 3, 2006 04:11 PM
I totally agree, anon 5:54. I so miss all of those vacant lots that decorated Brooklyn prior to the arrival of the developers. I submit that we tear it all down and only permit displacement through gentrification, er, excuse me, “organic development”.
Is it a question of the possability of using it or is it a justificatition for the obvious.
The citizens of this City have been the victims of eminent Domain for years. It’s just called “Developement”.
Katan, Gutman, Boymelgreen, and the rest of them have enjoyed themselves at the expence of every small home owner for years. Even the “News Paper of record” has jumped on the band wagon. Throwing small buisness’ and renters to the streets and using tax dollars earmark for the redevelopement of downtown Manhattan.
Eminent Domain. What do you call it when a Billioare Developer takes over and area then does anything and he wants – including breaking the law and leaving a trail of death and destruction. All with the blessings and help of our Government.
PJ Clarke’s – at 55th and 3rd – great example of why eminent domain absolutely sucks. Now a landmark 19th century building and successful business. Check out the black monolith behind it, which was still built despite the fact that they no doubt wanted to tear it down.
fp troll at 5:25- How would you know about accountability in life? You’re posting under other people’s names and let me be absolutely clear- the sentiments you expressed in your post are nothing like what I believe. You seem to be making loads of bad decisions- I can’t wait till you pay some consequences.
I know Puckish, and you, my trolling friend, are not Puckish.
For the most part, people who live in the projects deserve to live there. They have made some bad decisions and I feel sorry for them in that respect, but there is such a thing as accountability in life, is there not? These people have to learn that bad decisions have consequences, and among these consequences is life in the projects. That is just the way life is…for me, for your, for all of us.
I would venture to guess then that the 57 renters are rent controlled/stabilized tenants that have right of renewal no matter who landlord is. I wouldn’t pack up and leave myself without ‘relocation package’. Here again if Ratner BUYS the building directly from landlord – displacing those tenants in not eminent domain – but has to follow RS/RC regs.
Wonder about the 18 businesses. Are they renters (that can eventually be evicted) or owners of property that can’t.