[lbo-talk] When is private property NOT?

[andie nachgeborenen]

Doug, it's not like that _at all_.  Anti-aff action is
inherently a bad position in a racist society. There
is _nothing_ good to be said in favor of opposing AA.
But eminent domain is much more mixed. Certainly there
are disaster cases like Poletown or urban renewal
(formerly called Negro removal by civil rights
activists).  But most ED csaes are like my pipeline
case, routine economic development stuff that harms no
one. And other cases are more ambigious, like the
expansion of O'Hare.  

Furthermore, rejecting ED because of the bad cases is
like rejecting equal protection because the right uses
to argue vs. aff action, or voting because we have a
corrupt electotal system. Here we have a good, in fact
a great principle from our pov -- property is not an
inherent right -- written into our common and
constitutional law: properrty rights are subject to
the sovereign will and their grant must benefit the
public. Against this is the principle that private
property is sacred. Is it hard for leftists to decide
which is best for us? 

We can of course oppose bad takings (like Poletown) --
but not on the grounds that takings are bad in
general, but that this one fails to serve the public
interest.

I also don't see what's wrong with Justice Stevens
saying that the legislature of the agencies are the
bodies best equipped to determine whether the expected
benefits will accrue. I've worked on the judicial side
of this, I don't think judges are in general qualified
to make that judgment.

jks

--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> 
> >Eminent domain as it is put to use now, in addition
> to being a 
> >corporate giveaway, is a scheme for job destruction
> than job 
> >creation.  That's what Kelo justifies: "Also
> rejected is 
> >petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind
> the Court should 
> >require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected
> public benefits 
> >will actually accrue," in the words of Justice John
> Paul Stevens 
>
>(<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=nytimes>).
> 
> That's lovely. This is further evidence that
> Nathan's position is 
> based on phantasmic benefits offsetting real costs.
> 
> Given the dismal history of economic development
> schemes in the U.S., 
> it doesn't make much sense to argue from grand legal
> principle. It'd 
> be not unlike the way the right uses civil rights
> language to argue 
> against affirmative action.
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com