First, against some rhetoric out there, the eminent domain land is not being given to Pfizer; their commitment to create a research facility is what led to the rest of the development plan. As the Court stated:
"The development plan area is approximately ninety acres in size and is located on the Thames River in New London, adjacent to the proposed Fort Trumbull State Park, and the Pfizer global research facility, which opened in June, 2001. See Appendix to this opinion. It presently includes residential and commercial areas, and is comprised of approximately 115 land parcels. The development plan area also includes the presently closed United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which is thirty-two acres, and also the regional water pollution control facility."
And the goal was more than more tax revenues on the specific sites taken by eminent domain: "In its preface to the development plan, the development corporation stated that its goals were to create a development that would complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually ''build momentum'' for the revitalization of the rest of the city, including its downtown area."
The whole development included not only additional office research buildings, but also marina, housing designed in an "urban neighborhood", parking for an ajacent state park, and a range of new development to better use new water access.
And here's something almost no one paid attention to. The land being taken is not be sold to private developers. "the development corporation will own the land located within the development area. The development corporation will enter into ground leases of various parcels to private developers; those leases will require the developer to comply with the terms of the development plan."
So the land is being taken for public ownership, which should satisfy even "public use" fundamentalists, unless eminent domain is illegitimate even if any part of such land is leased to any private company.
Again, maybe the development plan is not the best possible, but with such a complicated public planning process, I actually don't think it's the role of the courts to second-guess whether the community was sufficiently taken account of. A far better focus of the courts -- one I have far more sympathy for -- would be for them to assure that voting rights of average citizens are being respected so that elected leaders are responsible to the community. But the judges shouldn't try to substitute their judgement for the actually elected leaders.
Nathan Newman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joanna" <123hop at comcast.net>
>
>>> Nathan Newman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why progressives are even slightly conflicted on this core legal issue
>>>> mystifies me. Of course, we should organize politically to stop bad
>>>> uses of
>>>> eminent domain, but giving property owners special legal status against
>>>> the
>>>> rest of the community is clearly against the interests of the
>>>> democratic
>>>> left.
>>>
>> But this isn't private property vs community. This is private property vs
>> capital.
>> They are not the same thing. The "community" thing is just a cover.
>
> No, capital would generally be quite willing to have urban centers like
> New London die. Sure, specific capitalists will happily cut deals to
> return to them, but most are not pushing that hard in such cities.
>
> Read the Connecticut Supreme Court decision which details the long
> community planning and efforts to revive jobs for community members in the
> city. This was very much a community goal, maybe not the ideal approach
> from a radical perspective but with a city of high unemployment and few
> financial resources, the whole New London approach was not some capitalist
> plot with no community involvement.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>