Surprise, surprise, the Metro Pulse editorializes in favor of the Kelo decision and eminent domain.
Hat tip to Katie Allison Granju
While Katie points out that this editorial support for eminent domain is coming from a weekly newspaper owned and published by a local real estate developed who could reasonably be expected to favor broad powers of eminent domain, she fails to point out that the writer of the editorial is a serious idiot as well.
I'm guessing she's too much of a lady to do so. I don't have that problem.
First, if Conley (Legal disclaimer: I'm not saying Conley did write it, because how would I know? It's a form of shorthand; anytime the word "Conley" appears in this article, please substitute, "the person who wrote the editorial in question and who works for and is paid by and therefore answers to Brian Conley, who by extension must have approved the message contained in this editorial." Thank you for your cooperation.) wants to write an editorial in favor of Kelo, then by all means let him do so. He bought the paper; he has the right to say what he wants to in its pages. It would be more convincing however had he the balls to sign the editorial instead of leaving it anonymous. That has a certain stink of hypocrisy about it, as he tries to wrap his own self interest with the mantle of journalism. At the very least, a disclaimer owning up to the fact that the Kelo decision represents a gold mine of opportunities for his company would not have gone amiss.
Of course, it goes without saying that the editorial itself is deeply flawed,
But I'll say it anyway.
It begins by claiming that "A lot of people expressed shock that there was such a principle as eminent domain at all in the land of the free. Some obviously thought that the Supreme Court ruling established eminent domain, rather than expanding it to some still hard-to-measure extent." Interesting way to start an argument; you call everyone on the other side ignorant. Oddly, Conley fails to provide any quotes from anyone holding this view. Maybe this is because it just ain't so. The vast majority of commentary and discussion I've had and heard on this issue directly contradicts his thesis; we all know about eminent domain. Hell, I had to watch a small film about it in grade school and that was 30 years ago! (Yikes! 30 years? Damn!) For reference check out virtually any blog that's dealt with the subject, including most of those listed to the right. Also note that Conley does not admit to any knowledgeable opposition; those who do oppose this extension of eminent domain are not even mentioned at all. The only opponents he recognizes are those ignorant boobs who don't really matter. (More on them in a moment.)
After a paragraph waxing lyrically about the wonders of seizing private property for the public good, Conley gins up this beauty:
Eminent domain or the threat of condemnation under eminent domain has been used for a host of public purposes, including the acquisition of road and railroad rights-of-way and airports, the establishment of schools and other public buildings, in urban-renewal projects, and in collecting land for industrial purposes or commercial enterprises that bring a community needed jobs and improvements to its tax base. That last use, providing land for capital investment by private parties, has not undergone a similar challenge until the recent case.
Similar challenge? What challenge? Similar to what? What the hell is this guy talking about? The "similar challenge" in this paragraph has no antecedent whatsoever! My guess is that there were a couple of sentences in the paragraph dealing with previous legal challenges to eminent domain that were excised for length and nobody caught the leftover reference. Surely an editor/publisher/owner of an alternative weekly could afford a proof reader to catch little things like that. But let's move on.
Whether one agrees with the Court majority or not, eminent domain has been employed to enable private development many times all across the country in the past. What was unusual about the Connecticut case was that it rendered legal, in retrospect, many previous such actions by local governments, wherein private property was condemned, its owners were paid some appraised value, and it was turned over to private developers for reasons of economic development and the perceived betterment of the local constituency as a whole.
This is completely and utterly false. There were several unusual aspects to the Connecticut case. Foremost, the use of eminent domain to give the land to private developers was justified by the classification of the properties involved as "blighted." High crime, low population density, and low property values were some of the measures used to determine if a property was blighted and vulnerable to eminent domain for private redevelopment. In Kelo, for the first time, a local government did not use the "blighted" label to condemn properties, instead making the case that increasing the tax base was sufficient reason for condemnation and eminent domain even if the properties involved were not blighted.
Despite Conley's attempts to gloss over this major expansion, this is why the public at large (Remember the ignorant boobs of a few paragraphs ago? They're back!) is reacting loudly to the decision (Another point we'll get back to in a few minutes.)
The next section is even more laughable; Conley uses TVA as a great example of eminent domain used in the public good, failing entirely to state that since TVA is a public, not private entity (a fact he must be aware of since he notes it in the editorial) it has no relevance whatsoever to the Kelo decision!
On the other hand, had he hypothesized that instead of going to TVA, all the land involved had been given to Shular realty for development as condominiums, well then you've got relevance out the yingyang, but it probably wouldn't work to rally folks to his side of the fence.
Conley then finishes up with an impassioned plea to leave eminent domain alone, and allow the duly elected politicians to control it as they are wise and wonderful. At least, I think that's what he was trying to say; it gets a little jumbled here at the end.
The ultimate test of the public betterment lies with the voters who elect their local officials,
but there is also a public responsibility to oppose questionable employment of eminent domain as the question arises, rather than later at the polls.
Wait a minute, Conley really can't mean that. It would invalidate the entire point of the editorial!
It should not be subjected to some sort of legislative curtailment or overly restrictive regulation at any level of government, as some opportunistic demagogues are now crying loudly and publicly to enact.
Keep it flexible but controlled by elected public servants who are accountable to voters for its outcomes.
Conley has regained his senses. Forget all that public involvement crap; that's dangerous and could be expensive and we've got condos to build. Leave it to the elected officials; after all, they've proven so responsive to our concerns in the past, haven't they?
Notice also that those who are speaking out against Kelo and the abuse of eminent domain aren't just ignorant boobs anymore, now they're "opportunistic demagogues."
To sum up, the writer of this editorial, who may or may not be Brian Conley, sets up a couple of straw man arguments, insults anyone who opposes him, misstates the facts about the Kelo decision, and ends up babbling incoherently about elected officials and opportunistic demagogues.
Pathetic.
Now then, to read a more coherent support of the Kelo decision, one based on the facts and the law, read this article by John Hindraker. While I still believe that the decision represents an egregious expansion of eminent domain that is ripe for abuse, I'd just like to note in closing that the phrase "opportunistic demagogues" does not appear in Mr. Hindraker's article.
Well said, now expect that little pansy to retaliate like he did with Bubba.
Metropulse was sorry journalism before this editorial, now you can almost taste their desire to rid you of your money through higher taxes(routinely calling for an income tax, and support of the wheel tax) and now your property. F them all.
You may have invoked the wrath of Conley. See if you get hacked as much as the knoxblab.com has the past few days.
It is sad to see that few people were outraged over the Metro Crap editorial. Easily the worst thing they have ever printed. I doubt we ever learn who wrote it but my bet is Barry Henderson. Although it shows the DNA that Conley is made from.
I think this is the proof that no one reads Metro Pulse any more.
Oh, it reeks of Henderson.
Posted by: Drake on July 27, 2005 12:56 PM