Pack your bags, Dan…
DeeDee writes: “Just saw on CNN that the Supreme Court ruled in the eminent domain case in Connecticut. The Court ruled that local governments can seize private property (homes and businesses) for private economic development. This ruling would support the proposed Atlantic Yards development plan.”
Links:
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes [Associated Press via Yahoo! News](Thanks to Ben for the tip)
Chaos Ensues in Daily Heights Forums [Daily Heights Forums]
Pack My Bags? You’re kidding, right?
I know you are being funny, but you do realize that “Dan” is not the only one living in this 21 acre site, right? Or that there are MAJOR obstacles in Ratner’s way, including, still, eminent domain.
DDDB Release on the decision:
For Immediate Release: June 23, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court Misses Historic Moment
Develop Don’t Destroy Urges Albany
to Curb Eminent Domain Abuse
BROOKLYN, NY– Today the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, deferring to the City of New London’s determination that the destruction of homes in a working class neighborhood in order to build a commercial development is not unconstitutional. The decision stands in sharp contrast to the unprecedented public outrage over eminent domain abuse across the U.S. Nevertheless, the decision will do little to dim civil rights advocates’ efforts to curb the actions of developers–and their sponsoring state and municipal agencies–who intend on making the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment a dead letter.
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” Justice O’Connor wrote in the dissenting opinion. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
O’Connor’s words should strike fear in the hearts of all citizens around the United States. “Justice O’Connor is absolutely correct, and the Ratner project’s use of eminent domain is a poster child for what she describes,” said Daniel Goldstein, spokesperson for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. “Today the Court has kept and reaffirmed the status quo, but in a severely split decision. The Court has made a federalist decision, which means it is now Albany’s responsibility to curb and restrict New York’s abusive eminent domain laws; here in Brooklyn and all over the state where private corporate powers are benefitting off the backs of everyday citizens.”
In December 2004, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) was one of 25 organizations that filed amici curiae briefs in support of the homeowners in Kelo. The briefs represented an extraordinary expression of solidarity among the disparate groups, cutting across racial, political, and social lines. The briefs in support of the City of New London, in contrast, were predictably filed in large part by developers and municipal agencies. To legal observers, the overwhelming public support for the homeowners and recent state court decisions reining in eminent domain abuse signaled a sea change, which the Supreme Court would likely acknowledge in its decision. Regrettably, the Court failed to seize the historic moment and tamely deferred to the City of New London’s determination that an increase in tax revenues justifies the destruction of homes.
Despite the ruling, Bruce Ratner’s plans to build a high-rise and arena complex in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn still contemplate an illegal and unnecessary use of eminent domain to force tenants, homeowners, and businesses from the footprint. “If Ratner uses eminent domain, it will be up to him to make the case that the neighborhood is blighted, which it patently is not, or the project makes economic sense, which is pure fantasy. We will pursue all legal channels available to us, and we are confident that a court of law will see the project for the boondoggle that it is,” Goldstein said. Indeed, Goldstein sat on a panel on Kelo held at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on June 8 where even pro-eminent domain panelists were deeply disturbed by the Ratner project’s reliance on eminent domain.
DDDB calls on Albany to follow the lead of states like Utah, whose Governor on March 17 signed into law a bill effectively banning the use of eminent domain for economic development. As DDDB’s retained counsel Norman Siegel said, “So long as the Supreme Court will defer to the states, it is up to our legislators to take up the challenge in putting an end to egregious eminent domain abuse.”
Sorry Dan, I don’t think we’ve seen “unprecedented public outrage over eminent domain abuse across the U.S.”
Just because DDDB linked up with the folks in CT and perhaps others have as well, the vast majority of the U.S. population could give two shits about eminent domain because their house is not being taken.
I don’t mean to minimize your cause or anything but I think that statements like the one I quoted don’t help you. In my mind you lose credibility so I tune out everything you say. BTW, that’s too bad because I’m sure you have some valid points that I would agree with, I just think the approach is too extreme and sensationalist.
Our story is up, if anyone wants to check it out. It’s interesting, if you news.google.com, you’ll see the national story (the AP one) has been printed on websites nationwide, and WNYC as well as NY1 have already done Ratner stories.
http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_26/28_26nets1.html
I’m fortunate to not be relegated to the bird’s eye view.
Well, thats your opinion Ben. the reality is the Kelo case brought an incredibly large number of amicus briefs and there is outrage around this city right now about eminent domain in Brooklyn, Queens, and Manahattan. There was the overturn of Poletown.
There is a groundswell of public opininion around the country against the abusive use of eminent domain. set up a google alert with keywords “eminent domain” and you’ll get articles, numerous articles, everyday, from all around the country.
You think the approach is extreme and sensationalist. I think its right on target. if you choose to tune out, well, tune out.
last thing, you wrote “my cause.” Ben, its not my cause.
You crack me up, Dan, you put so much drama into this.
At the end of the day, you’re trying to lobby people to see your way and support your views. I’m telling you that your approach isn’t working for me. Not the content necessarily but the approach. I don’t think I’m alone in this view.
A good lobbyist should approach people in the way that’s most likely to get through to them. I’m surprised that you don’t take this as constructive criticism and maybe keep it in mind and see if others might feel the same way.
I think you come across as losing your cool and being very aggressive and extreme in your opinions. On the other hand, Ratner comes across as very calm and gives the impression of listening to people’s concerns. I’m sure Ratner is an a-hole but he doesn’t come across that way to the general public, he’s a good politician. He’s playing the game better than you are and don’t forget, this is a game.
Last thing, Dan, it is your cause, get over yourself.
You make some good points, Ben. The two people most associated with the arena opposition are Patti Hagen (sp?) and Daniel Goldstein. Though Ms. Hagan appears to have disappeared from the press, she often came across as crazed and hysterical. Dan Goldstein has always seemed haughty and pedantic to me, seemingly more concerned with proving area proponents wrong rather than trying to win them over. I agree with your advice that presentation is vital and, like or hate him, Ratner is far more polished.
Haughty and pedantic? How so? please xplain. Are facts haughty? Is truth pedantic? If so, then I’m guilty.
as for Ratner being polished, do you mean this:
http://www.dddb.net/FCR_brooklynstandard.pdf
also, millions in PR will make anyone polished.
Ben? How is it my cause? You think I’m in this alone and fighting for myself? How is my point that its a larger cause worthy of telling me to get over myself?
the drama? are you saying there is no drama in a 3.5 billion dollar project that will radically change the area, on that i think we can agree, and the use of undemocratic pocesses and eminent domain to do it?
sure, i’ll take the criticism of losing my cool. i certainly do “lose my cool” at times. that happens.
but tell me what is extreme in my points. point something out that I’ve said that is extreme.
>Are facts haughty? Is truth pedantic?
OK. It’s like a knife, right? You can stab somebody, or you can use it to butter bread, or maybe it’s really fancy and you are so proud of it that you just put it in a plastic case and hang it up so you can admire it.
Or maybe it’s like a fly swatter… you can use it to kill a pest. Or you can try to flip pancakes with it.
I’m not accusing anybody of anything here… Just airing one of my pet peeves.
sure sounds like your slinging hash with your spatula.
oh and by the way, is “Pack your bags Dan” a spoon used to slurp soup or to cover your ears?
Dan, it’s as I said, the content of what you say is not necessarily extreme, it’s the tone and delivery. I never said your views are extreme, I even said you have many points I would agree with, just that your delivery of your views turns me off. Your reply here is another example of this, you’re taking everything as an attack on your views when I think I was pretty clear that I’m not attacking them.
Regarding your cause, it can be your cause as well as the cause of others. I’m not saying you’re only doing this because your home is at risk, that’s what you have interpreted my comments to be saying. It’s OK to have a cause, everyone should have a cause, something they believe in and are passionate about. Saying it’s your cause is not an attack but you seem to like to turn every comment someone makes into an attack on you which is further illustration of my original point.
If that is the ‘real’ Dan Goldstein commenting I’ve lost more respect for him and the ’cause’.
I am troubled by the Supreme Court ruling (and I thought lightning would strike me dead if I ever
agreed with an opinion on Scalia/Thomas side).
Kennedy’s Vast Domain
WSJ/ June 24, 2005; Page A12
The Supreme Court’s “liberal” wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court’s four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.
No one disputes that this power of “eminent domain” makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment’s “takings clause” also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is required for genuine “public use” such as roads. It further requires that the government pay owners “just compensation” in such cases.
The founding fathers added this clause to the Fifth Amendment — which also guarantees “due process” and protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination — because they understood that there could be no meaningful liberty in a country where the fruits of one’s labor are subject to arbitrary government seizure.
That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday’s 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for “public use.” The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.
“The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Justice Kennedy wrote in concurrence that this could be considered public use because the development plan was “comprehensive” and “meant to address a serious city-wide depression.” In other words, local governments can do what they want as long as they can plausibly argue that any kind of public interest will be served.
In his clarifying dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas exposes this logic for the government land grab that it is. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use Clause” with a very different “public purpose” test: “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a ‘public use.'”
And in a separate dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion — take from the poor, give to the rich — would become the norm, not the exception: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
That prospect helps explain the unusual coalition supporting the property owners in the case, ranging from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly. Justice Thomas’s opinion cites a wealth of data to that effect.
And it’s not just the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment that’s undermined by Kelo. So too is the guarantee of “just compensation.” Why? Because there is no need to invoke eminent domain if developers are willing to pay what owners themselves consider just compensation.
Just compensation may differ substantially from so-called “fair market value” given the sentimental and other values many of us attach to our homes and other property. Even eager sellers will be hurt by Kelo, since developers will have every incentive to lowball their bids now that they can freely threaten to invoke eminent domain.
So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it’s now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.
These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the “strict constructionist” he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy.
It is ridiculous to say: “You crack me up, Dan, you put so much drama into this.” This IS a dramatic situation. It is REASONABLE to be angry and to speak out. When our rights are threatened, cool insouciance is just not the way to go, sorry. You may consider this hyperbole, but would you say that other causes that directly affect people’s lives–civil rights, reproductive rights, voting rights–would you say to those people: “You crack me up, you put so much drama into this”? This is a major property rights issue: big business preying on the middle and lower classes. You would never see a developer trying to demolish a swath of the Upper East Side to put up a Chuck E. Cheese. This is going to disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes, and that’s a big problem. If you don’t like how Dan states the facts, well, if you can do it better, great. Give it a shot. When we can afford to hire Erin Brockovich, we will. Until then, please excuse us for being extremely angry about the state seizing our homes to reward a developer who has heretofore built nothing but hideous malls in Brooklyn.
Sorry Dan, I don’t think we’ve seen “unprecedented public outrage over eminent domain abuse across the U.S.”–Ben
I strongly disagree, Ben. The reaction yesterday everywhere I “hang out” online (livejournal and a women’s interest site that I shall name) was quick, animated, and angry. People–most of whom don’t live in NYC, let alone Brooklyn, let alone PH–were talking about it, getting angry, wondering what could be done about it. I’ve never heard of people who aren’t affected getting so interested in the issue, and now many more people are aware of it.
Sorry, I meant “shall NOT name.” Oh well.
I’ll agree that the decision itself has caused a great deal of additional interest but I don’t think there was nearly as much yesterday.
I also don’t think people are as concerned with the current abuse of eminent domain as they are with the potential for abuse with this decision. There is a big difference.
This decision has strong implications regarding the 5th amendment and anytime the constitution is impacted people are going to be concerned. However, this is a different issue than the outrage with current abuse that Dan mentioned and I quoted.
Ben, there is outrage. you can read it all over the press. if you don’t see it, thats fine. but Leigh wrote above is absolutely correct. Why should we sit back and say “thank you sirs, thank you for pissing on us.”
Dan Goldstein is a should be on a postage stamp for the way he has stood up to the dishonestly and greed of the politicians and the ‘Ratners’. Compare him to the slobbering, sycophant Markowitz and you get a clearer picture of what “virtue” in a person means.