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]
The constitutional ‘protection’ is already there (clearer than virtually any other provision) – “Just compensation”
Who has the right to decide these things – your elected representitves – ED is a governmental power… if you think that your representitve is too loose with using it – vote for some new ones.
Look I’m not saying a municipality or a State couldnt (or shouldnt)(thoughtfully) put into place more protections surrounding ED use in non-infrastructure situations, but much of the rhetoric (and legislative proposals) go far beyond this and effectively remove ED from ever being used – which as Bloomberg pointed out is a HUGE mistake
“Bx2Bklyn” troll — if you’re going to impersonate someone, at least attempt to get her writing style down. You’re like the worst troll ever.
Probably not a good idea to ban the trolls, Mr. B. If one of them knows where you work, he might just drop a dime on your lilly white ass.
Thanks Mr. B- I kinda wondered since I have never seen you operate that way.
David- we’re arguing semantics. I’m with Brownstoner on this- it makes me uncomfortable and I think it’s a terrible precedent to look solely at the numbers. I know democracy is founded on majority rules, but the Constitution built in protections for everyone. I’m overstating this I realize, but look at countries that terrorize their minorities because they are the majority. A bit of a stretch and I am not equating Ratner with Bosnia or Hitler- but rather I am wondering who has the right to decide these things? And to whose benefit? How is the process going to be fair to everyone (as much as possible), without this becoming a country where if you have enough money or clout, the government gives you someone else’s private property because you want an upscale shopping mall. Which will of course generate jobs, etc.- but where does it stop?
Bx2B,
The troll impersonated us too in that post but we didn’t want to fan the flames anymore. There were actually two trolls–we think–and they should be blocked now. ‘Nuf said.
“Mr. B- was simply letting David know that there was one and it was using other’s names. You could have emailed me that instead of doing it publically.”
Indeed! The service at this restaurant is horrible!
Well Bx2Bklyn I wasnt uncivil (nor was anyone else)…and while you may not have used #s you (and many other anti-AY people) use language which (IMO) misleads.
When you say “a lot” of buisness will be displaced – I think it makes people think of dozens of companies with hundreds of workers, not less than 20 the majority of which are gas stations, auto repair or storage (far from irreplaceable engines of economic growth)
and when you say “Brownstone blocks” – I think it creates the impression of wholesale destruction of scores of gorgeous houses with historical detailing containing hundreds of families – not a bunch of rundown 4 story apartment buildings that currently have 57 renters living in them.
I certainly (and I think most) sympathize with the biz owners who will be displaced as well as the renters and condo owners but you have to put it into perspective – well over 1000 people should be living in affordable housing as a result of the project and I am willing to bet that more wages will be earned in the demolition of the AY site then will have been earned in the prior 10 years at the (to-be) displaced buisnesses. Not to mention that all displaced individuals will receive some compensation (of some sort).
I’m still not disagreeing with your 10:59 post- I’m just objecting to the way everyone jumps on every statement and goes for the throat. We can’t even disagree civilly. The fact is brownstones will be lost, and so will businesses. Those are facts.
Anon- facts aren’t getting in the way of my case because those are facts. How can I prove what everyone knows are facts. Just because I didn’t say how many? That wasn’t my point. And IMO- we’ll see how much affordable housing gets built onsite (I got the AY brochure too- nice little fluff piece), but why should it be at the price of taking it from someone else? ANd there are more than 80 people being displaced (or bought out), not to mention that those businesses also provide jobs. What about those families and the business owners who are impacted? According to the federal government, the engine of the economy is actually the small businesses all across the country so I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them. (It was in the papers- you can find it yourself.)
Kelo was my favorite case last year because it blew so many people’s minds. But I applaud Bloomberg for his progressive views on eminent domain, which are directly counter to the conservative goals of small-government Republicans and other conservative activists (which NoLandGrab hilariously calls “progressive activists”). Brave move for somebody who makes any claim to GOP membership, but a practical position for anybody who actually has to govern.