> It's common in economics to see most if not all arguments in favor of
> some program based on the jobs it will create as fallacious. I agree.
> The problem is that not only will project X (being advocated) produce
> jobs, but so will project Y (being ignored by the advocate). And
> project Y might be less expensive (either totally or per job) and more
> beneficial.
What was the alternative in New London that would create so many more jobs and be less expensive?
To repeat, the eminent domain was NOT being used for Pfizer, which already was building its research plant. The New London project was a combination of redevelopment of the waterfront -- replacing old military facilities-- and building additional office space and new higher-density housing to take advantage of the hoped for spillover growth from the Pfizer facility.
Urban design can matter for economic growth and encouraging spillover effects. Some economic facilities become autarchic facilities with little interplay with the surrounding community and others become drivers of additional growth. Sure, SOMEONE may get the benefits of any particular economic activity, but history has been that it's suburban areas. The trick has been figuring out how to bring that economic activity to poorer, less white urban areas.
Again, maybe the New London approach was not the best possible but what still strikes me is that the list of folks filing briefs in opposition to eminent domain powers read like a whos who of rightwing pro-capitalist think tanks, from the Rutherford Institute to the Cato Institute to the Western States Legal Foundation t the Farm Bureau. They sure as hell don't see expansive local power on eminent domain as something to be defended.
-- Nathan Newman