Asymmetrical Information

You're a libertarian?

Corruption in New Jersey! Who could have imagined?

FWIW, I still think Kelo was correctly decided. This kind of stuff smells, but it really does seem like a state issue, not a constitutional one.

Kevin - I agree.

its bad... what we need is state constitutional amendments mandating triple compensation on highest assessment, 50% of gain on development, as well as mandating public use (governemnt building) or use for a large network development (i.e. rail, highway, pipeline, etc).

that would really put a crimp into these corrupt uses of eminent domain, encourage people to figure out ways to not use eminent domain, as well as keeping the ability to seize property for actually necessary projects (armed forces bases, airports, etc).

This is an excellent example of why government must be reduced to a minimum. No level of government should be in the business of picking winners and losers. If the mayor doesn't like a developer, he or she should not have the power to simply turn a project over to another developer. (This is different from requiring contractors be "qualified" to do the work.) Allow government officials to steer work to friends is a prescription for corruption.

I find the underlying story horrifying, a textbook case of why Kelo was a bad idea. Basically, you have politicians taking property to give it to their donors. There's really no particular justification in public policy terms.

Mr. Drum,
What part of "for public use doesn't make sense to you?

'but it really does seem like a state issue, not a constitutional one.'

Where does the Fifth Amendment say that?

And, does Kevin Drum think that double jeopardy or due process are also just state issues?

Ah--the joys of equivocation. "Public use" really means "public benefit." And of course "benefit" carries a much looser meaning than "use," as that which is considered to be beneficial is a matter left to the eyes of the beholder. If I am the mayor of town A and I wish to condemn a mansion so I can have the city rent it to my brother for one dollar a year, I don't think anybody would seriously suggest that this was done for a "public use," but if we only have to justify it by the benefit standard I could legitimately say that it was a benefit to the public because he would no longer be sleeping on the streets and annoying people by aggressively demanding that they give him their spare change.

I think it is rather remarkable that Mr. Drum is rejecting the incorporation doctrine with regards to the 5th Amendment, if I understand correctly. Does he take the care to be consistent about rejecting the incorporation doctrine (which certainly is a possible position)?

Comments are Closed.