Conservative Hypocracy on Eminent Domain
"Think jobs. Customers for businesses. Housing. Office space. Tax revenue. "
Of course, there is the little technicality that this project requires the use of government eminent domain power to take property from private individuals (the landowners there) and give it to other private individuals (the developers, especially Nets owner Bruce Ratner).
Conservatives had gone ballistic over the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo vs. City of New London decision that basically said that the government can do exactly the above in the name of economic development. So what is a conservative paper (Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is the Post's owner) doing expressing support of big government intervention? For once, even they admit that there is a bit of a problem here:
'Ever since the Supreme Court's ruling last year in Kelo vs. New London, we, too, have had concerns about eminent domain, which lets public officials seize private property (and compensate owners) for "public" purposes, including economic development.'
But the Post's editorial writer rationalizes away this concern by showing that big government knows best:
'But this project will benefit far more than Forest City Ratner; indeed, its positive ripples will cross the East River and be felt by all New Yorkers.'
Right. As the left has been saying for decades, big government projects have positive effects. The difference between liberals and conservatives is to whom they wish the benefits of big govement to reach. In this case, the biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy developers.
And no wonder that there was no serious move to reverse Kelo with a clarifying Constitutional Amendment. The K Street lobbyists would not have stood for it.