Remember way back in 1999 when the city of New London evicted Susette Kelo and her neighbors from their homes so that the fine people at Pfizer would grace the city with their abundant jobs and tax revenues? Remember how the US Supreme Court agreed that giving cheap land to another private owner because they can make better use of it constituted legitimate public use under the fifth amendment? Remember all that development (of vacant lots) that took place on the land so essential to the public good?
Bustling!
If you need a rage-inducing refresher, I’d recommend this video from the Institute for Justice, which represented Kelo in her unsuccessful legal battle:
Now, a decade after it had the state destroy a thriving community, Pfizer is leaving New London. At least Pfizer executives got to look at vacant lots rather than tenements for a few years, I guess.
The company is still deciding what to do with its confiscated land. If there were any justice in the world, the land and building would be considered abandoned and available for homesteading. Given the havoc it has wrought in the area, though, the land should be going cheap anyway. Maybe a permanent monument to the destructive power of government is in order?
Brad Taylor is a graduate student in Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He blogs at 
Disgusting.
i sold my stock in pfizer after i voted against the motion to pursue this case…yes, it was voted on by the stockholders.
traitors all.
I really should have done more to that company than get fired for launching automated probes against their firewalls when such was actually within my contractual purview… Ah well…
Pfizer ain’t exactly about to abandon Groton, though, just across the river from New London. Still plenty of rednecks there to kick off the fucking reservation for the sake of a new penis pill plant.
They’re moving most of the employees from New London to Groton, I believe.
Welcome to socialism,America!
Reminds me a lot of the “good old days” in east germany.Only difference back then was that robbed private property was not given to another private owner but kept by the corrupt state bureaucracy.
No hay justicia.
Why am I not suprised by this, at all. WTF!
No, I don’t remember the USA Supreme Court saying only that. I remember them saying that the states had this power (see the Tenth Amendment) and that the Supreme Court could not gainsay the power no matter how stupidly they thought it was being used. Which reminded me a great deal of the annexation of Clear Lake City, Texas, and the related Supreme Court decision.
Not that I expect you to read or understand what the Supreme Court writes. It is, after all, an authoritarian agency with bad manners. What they say has no effect on my sovereignty, and shouldn’t have any on yours.
However, it might be more effective in making a persuasive argument to recognise that some of your readers may be familiar with the case, or even have involved themselves in the case. So if you put somewhat more effort into stating their decision when you want people to remember being outraged about it, that might be nice.
Or you could just say, “Kelo opinion sucked ass” and leave it at that.
Hmm, I must have been inserting invisible “onlys” into my writing again, sorry.
I’m no expert on the case by any means (I’m not American and, as you advise, don’t put too much credence in any Court’s decisions), but my understanding is the question the SCOTUS was faced with was only whether, in the details of the Kelo case, the takings constituted public use. The fifth amendment is considered to be binding upon all governments, is it not? Searching the SCOTUS decision, I can’t find any reference to the tenth amendment at all, and they explicitly say that the Fifth amendment applies, due to the Fourteenth. The decision created the precedent that government only required a mildly plausible case for public benefit. That would apply to the federal government as well.
As far as I can tell, Kelo had absolutely nothing to do with States’ rights. Am I missing something? Were you personally involved in the case and aware of something the rest of us aren’t?
It is quite possible that my recollection is mistaken. I’m unAmerican, too, ask anyone. You are certainly right about the invisible “only” and I apologise. My bad.
In re-reading the decision, it is clearly confounded in my memory with the Clear Lake City decision of two decades back.
Now that the property stands abandoned, perhaps Kelo and the other home owners should appeal to the city of New London to have the property condemned and seized under eminent domain and returned to them for development as private housing.
This passage in particular reads like a 10th amendment argument, and parallels the Clear Lake City case.
“We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.”
Wow, what a disgrace. I bet the environmentalists would be happy too, for all the plants that have moved in there!