[lbo-talk] When is private property NOT?

[Autoplectic]

On 6/24/05, Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
> Here are some relevant sections from the Connecticut Supreme Court decision
> on Kelo:
> http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR268/268cr152.pdf
> 
> 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."

-------------------------------

[snip]
In January 1998, the State authorized a $5.35million bond issue to
support the NLDC's planning activities and a $10 million bond issue
toward the creation of a Fort Trumbull State Park. In February, the
pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced that it would build a
$300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort
Trumbull; local planners hoped that Pfizer would draw new business to
the area, thereby serving as a catalyst to the area's rejuvenation.
[snip]

<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf>

NeoChartalist theories of money and finance aside, this is a classic
first move in a case of the socialism of risk and the corporatization
of gains.

[snip]
4While this litigation was pending before the Superior Court, the NLDC
announced that it would lease some of the parcels to private
developers in exchange for their agreement to develop the land
according to the terms of the development plan. Specifically, the NLDC
was negotiating a 99-year ground lease with Corcoran Jennison, a
developer selected from a group of applicants. The negotiations
contemplated a nominal rent of $1 per year, but no agreement had yet
been signed.
[snip]

<http://www.corcoranjennison.com/>

Gee, I wonder who at CJ was wining and dining with the Party
bigwigs...........And this is the crux of the problem; the two parties
can always cloak patronage politics and crony capitalism in the
rhetoric of economic development, urban planning etc. Conversely
economic development and urban planning can always be redescribed as
patronage politics, 'The Daly Machine', whathaveyou, because all one
has to do is follow the money and decision makers and how they
construct local circuits of capital. Hence the CoinGate problem in
Ohio, the problems in Tennessee, the Biotech pork in Seattle, lord
knows how many stadium deals [Texas Rangers hello!] and any number of
other cases. This goes way beyond the problems associated with
'regulatory capture.'

Ian