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]
True- technically ED hasn’t yet been used in the Ratner project but certainly the threat of it has always been. Ratner said that from the beginning. If they do go ahead with ED, there will be some brownstone blocks that will be lost. And certainly a lot of businesses are being displaced.
Anon @ 1127 – some prison , in virtual identical (but private) developments apartments rent for $1000 a month (1br) and $2300 a month (1br)- Parkchester and Styvesant Town.
The use of eminent domain in the AY case seems overblown. From what I read most parcels have been freely purchased, big part of it of course is rights over RR tracks, and it seems like a theres a few holdouts where there is possibility for ED – but to imply that it is being used right now misleading.
There may be currently some bulldozing of blocks/parcels on which you may think are attractive bldgs. but that is not being done with eminent domain.
Yeah without ED you wouldnt have the beautful Marcy, Farragut, Marcus Garvey Homes,Vernon Avenue Homes, Sumner Homes, Ocean Hill Homes and other PRISON like structures.
David,I agree with you. It’s making the distinctions that will be fair that’s so hard. FYI- I never said you were a troll but we do have a resident troll who is posting as other people and desperately trying to start trouble.
Now I’m a troll?? – you guys better look up what a troll is
ED is absoulutly necessary for Govt to have – w/o it you wouldnt have roads, water, sewer, schools, hospitals, transit etc… nor could you upgrade or replace the systems. It is so essential that our founding fathers wrote it into the consititution. The kelo case and AY et al have brought up the issue of ED for uses that arent so clearly ‘public’ or ‘governmental’ – like redevelopment built by and owned by private individuals/companies
The problem is that the backlash to Kelo is resulting in anti-ED proposals that would severely limit all ED – not just this so called ‘private’ ED.
Not to mention that the distinction between private and public isnt so clear; often things like transit, hospitals and even schools and roads are built and/or owned by private companies. and of course you also have to figure out where public agencies (MTA;Triboro etc) fit in.
I agree that it should be a local decision but the issue does still go to the Constitutional level, so there has to be a better system. And of course the things Robert Moses did in order to build the parkways and such, while unhappiness making, are necessary for the life of the city and region, as well as falling within the original guidelines for eminent domain.
Today too many politicians are stretching that definition for their developer friends. So one the one hand they wave around the free market banner of economics, and on the other, they undermine the free market by taking property from someone to give to a private developer. Gee- sounds kinda like communism.
There are a lot of benefits to the Ratner complex, and a lot of downsides, but you can’t tell me with an architect like Frank Gehry, they couldn’t have done it a better, less traumatic way.
I think only because there hasn’t been an issue where he has had to make a real stand on it. Ratner is steamrolling through and as much as I hate to say so, Bloomberg didn’t have to do much re ED for that.
As far as being a bully- no. I don’t think a mayor has to bully anyone. If he’s a strong mayor and a good one, no one has to be pushed around. But Bloomberg has never been a mayor for everyone. In his second term we’re seeing much more of the “real” Bloomberg, but we should have known after he started closing firehouses.
I’m still on the fence, and see your point on park slope. but where would we be without Moses’ traffic projects (prospect xpswy, cross bronx)?