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]
oh puh-leeze brownbomber. Grow up.
Another landslide victory by the home team! David 119 – AY Opposition 14.
Cracked I am not from FCR and the data I gave you (3 condo owners; 57 renters and 18 bizs) came from the Draft Scope of Analysis prepared by the Empire State Development Corporation
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.
Deg- care to explain how you read Kelo as ruling ED @ AY unconstitutional?
With all the back and forth going on here it is hard to figure out what the facts are. Does anyone NOT FROM FCR OR DDDB have hard facts on the real number of people who are being displaced from their homes and the number of businesses being kicked out. My humble impression is that the numbers are not that high especially in relation to the number of new homes and economic opportunities that will be created.
Thanks
Under Kelo, eminent domain for “Atlantic Yards” is unconstitutional. don’t matter if it effects one or dozens. unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
and for anyone who thinks the threat of eminent domain is not real, it is the only thing that has enabled Ratner to dismantle a perfectly fine set of blocks in Prospect Heights. If you like the idea of a private entity using the threat of a government power, without that government’s approval of that power, then good luck to y’all.
I would say we also should more clearly define “just compensation.” Who decides and what factors into it. I know you will say market values and things you can count, but for instance, in Kelo, elderly people are being forced to give up homes they’ve owned for decades. I imagine they have a different view of what just is. that said, I know ED is a necessary evil and it is self-defeating to rule it out altogether. That is something I have never advocated. But I also believe that private developer projects should have a much greater burden of proof and must do everything possible to not use ED. I honestly believe Ratner could have achieved the same end result if he had thought a little more imaginatively.
Right, can’t look solely at numbers but can’t ignore them. When we are talking about development of thousands of units compared to moving out a couple dozen.
Also – businesses are ‘displaced’ all the time. I don’t know which businesses are being ‘displaced’ because they are tenants and current landlord is evicting/not renewing lease..or new landlord/Ratner is evicting. But that issue is not ED.
That’s leasing/renting property rules.
The only businesses you can talk about in regard to ED are those that own land and refuse to sell.Same for residential tenants/landlords.
Yes, there are dangers of abuse to ED…but as mayor points out economic stagnation without it.