> Fuck, I'm not against eminent domain for real public
> improvement purposes, but I think those should be
> narrowly defined. Awful things have gone on in the
> name of urban planning; we've just heard some
> examples from LA, and I know of plenty from NYC and
> New Haven (the laboratory for urban renewal). There's
> a real prob with eminent domain as it's actually
> practiced, and it's not just right-wing cynics playing
> on crude populist sentiments.
Fair enough, but this is not an issue that we will resolve in the courts. It is and ought to be a matter for local contestation. It's true that real estate interests routinely buy off city councils, planning commissions, and pliant neighborhood groups for nefarious ends. But I do not want to see the power of eminent domain eliminated generally. I can recall at least one incident in Pittsburgh where the threat of eminent domain against a transnational kept a factory open and saved hundreds of jobs. That is an option that we should have; the agenda of the left at the local level should include demands for democratic economic and residential planning. Lining up against eminent domain as such perpetuates a debilitating dependence on the courts that ultimately limits our ability to act in cases where we DO claim power.
Further, I think it is important to maintain the principle that there is no such thing as absolute property right, and that private property rights are granted to fulfill public purposes. As I think you recognize in most other cases, opposition to eminent domain as such is regressive NIMBYism of the Louise Day Hicks school, and ought not be encouraged.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories