Haven’t heard much lately from the Institute for Justice, but earlier this week they weighed in on a case of irony:
Pfizer, Inc., announced today that the company will be closing its former research and development headquarters in New London, Conn. This was a project that involved massive corporate welfare and led to the abuse of eminent domain that ultimately bulldozed the home of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London.
This was the same bogus development plan that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question when the property owners of New London pleaded to have their homes spared from the wrecking ball. Justices mentioned that there was a plan in place, and that so long as lawmakers who are looking to use eminent domain for someone’s private gain had a plan, the courts would wash their hands. Now, more than four years after the redevelopment scheme passed constitutional muster—allowing government to take land from one private owner only to hand that land over to another private party who happens to have more political influence—the plant that had been the magnet for the development is closing its doors and the very land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood remains barren to all but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.
Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case for the Institute for Justice on behalf of the New London homeowners, said, “Today’s announcement that Pfizer is closing its research facility in New London demonstrates the folly of government plans that involve massive corporate welfare and that abuse eminent domain for private development. The majority opinion in Kelo v. New London described the Fort Trumbull project as a ‘carefully considered’ plan, but it has been an unmitigated disaster from start—and now—to finish.”
Bullock continued, “Project supporters blame the economic downturn for this turn of events. That is all the more reason why taxpayer dollars should not be put at risk in speculative and risky development schemes.”
Despite the Court’s Kelo ruling, much change for the good has occurred.
Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice and co-counsel in the Kelo case, said, “In the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling, 43 states have now reformed their laws to better protect property owners. What’s more, seven state high courts have stepped in post-Kelo to protect the rights of homeowners against eminent domain abuse. The high courts of Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey and Rhode Island have all ruled in favor of property owners and against eminent domain for private gain. None has made Kelo the rule under their own state constitutions.”
It is unfortunate that the economy has come to this point where the development could not continue, not because I agree with the Kelo decision, but because this empty lot will be a testament to dreams dashed – not just those of the developers, but those of the displaced homeowners who simply wanted to invest in their piece of the American Dream. Yes, most have started over in different locations but the cohesiveness they enjoyed in their neighborhood has gone by the wayside. And the city of New London has taken a loss because a vacant lot isn’t nearly as lucrative in terms of tax revenue than an improved neighborhood full of working people.
But the same argument can be made in a lot of cases where government purchases private property for their own use. In many cases it’s done simply to preserve open space, which is fine to a point but can be overdone to the detriment of the local community. Too much space placed off-limits to development places a premium on remaining space, driving prices upward and choking off the opportunity for regional growth and job creation.
Obviously the writers of the release get the point, and I’m pleased to extend it to the logical conclusion.
