The appropriation of public power to benefit private business seems to be an increasing phenomenon. Here in Syracuse NY, the city has been quite vigorous in using eminent domain powers to evict productive, taxpaying businesses from an area north of downtown, so that a mall developer can expand. The project (DestinyUSA) has been touted as a complex larger than Mall of America, and has been on-again off-again for a number of years while the developer plays city politicians off against the county and state, seeking more land and increased tax-exemptions.

When did it become the responsibility (or the right, for that matter) of government to advocate for one private business against another... or against the rest of the community?

But I believe that it looks better having left the other building in place and building around it. It feels like the street has a life for people to experience rather than monolithic block-long similarity. Far too often "planners" underestimate the importance street life to a building's usefulness and appeal.

In the Kelo decision, Stevens said, "Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their deterrmination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference."

The Supreme Court moved the bar from "blight" to "sufficiently distressed to justify rejuvenation." The Rosemount Port Authority is now trying to move it to "stagnant." Where does it end?

Leave it to a government official to resort to name-calling. "Profiteering"? Is Dr. Hansen (the entreprenuerial veterinarian who bought the property) holding a gun to the City's head to force it to buy the property? Oh, that's right, it's the city with the gun.

yup, it would be the city with the gun. I think they are thieves. They do it all the time. Land in someone's family for centuries, if they want it, they steal it. This is the "Great America" they all want us to beleive. It's only great for the rich. What a pity

Amusing fact: After Kelo lost Kelo v. New London, the big U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain case, the City of New London had the colossal gall to send her a bill for rent - because, obviously, her house had been sitting on city land during the whole case.

- using eminent domain to benefit private development, that is.
...or perhaps I should say that the citizens of Oregon did. Citizen referendum (the ability of citizens to put measures on the ballots to become law or amend the constitution) is one of the greatest things ever.

If you don't have it - you need it. Because politicians are venal and greedy.

I believe there were two Bugs Bunny cartoons that remind me of that postcard. One involved the construction of a building that required the iwascible wabbit to move, and the other was in the construction of a freeway.

Both ended with Bugs Bunny thwarting the construction crews with his usual combination of wit and heavy objects dropped from great heights. They ended up building around him. I believe both cartoons ended with a remark about how a man's home is his castle, and the sanctity of the American home must be "presoived."

If we updated the cartoons to modern day, Bugs would have to outsmart a team of lawyers and high-court judges to evict him. I expect he'd beat them by having himself declared an endangered species. (Have you got a fwicaseeing wabbit license?)

James, I agree with you in general. Eminent domain should be limited to roads and other clear public uses (uses, not benefits). Private land ownership and strict limitations as to why the government can force a private owner to sell are right up there with freedom of speach and religion in terms of basic rights that define our country.

However, this is not a senior citizen or poor small business owner trying to protect their home/business from greedy private developers being abetted by equally greedy public officials.

I am a real estate finance professional. What I get from that story was the current owner purchased the land for an above market price hoping to leverage the city's desire for the property into a profit.

If the city was low balling the prior owner in its negotiations then they are partially to blame. Clearly the prior owner was willing to sell if they had made an attractive enough offer.

If the city wouldn't go over the appraised value then that was foolish. If they are proposing to take the land based on the public benefits that will be generated by the improvements, then the value of the land was clearly more than if it retained its current usage (which is to say, the value of the land as an assemblage for redevelopment is greater than as a run down gas station and truck rental location).

it's one thing for a long-term land owner to hold out for the best possible price for his/her land, but I don't think that a speculator should be allowed to hold up the development.

If the land is so valuable, then let the government pay the owner the value of the property AFTER redevelopment.

Why shouldn't a speculator be able to hold up the development? This is a private development. The fact that the city is willing to use its police power to support the private developer doesn't improve the private developer moral position one whit.
Obvously, the private developer failed to take reasonable precautions to keep the plans under wraps until the property had been bought up. Why shouldn't the speculator be able to profit from that?

Assuming the now owner didnt have inside information that they were planning on building on this site before the general public, why not make a profit? He risks his money to buy the property. This is the way things work. If the city has issue with it, they should have offered the original owner more money.

"Several Port Authority commissioners expressed frustration at Hansen's tactics, pointing out that he bought the property knowing that the city was eyeing the parcel for redevelopment, and that it could be subject to condemnation. Ratzlaff has said that Hansen paid him significantly more than the price offered by the city's developer, which was based on an appraisal."

In other words they low balled the owner, thinking that he had no choice in the matter and that he could only deal with the city. They blew the negotiations and now want to use the iron fist of government to cover their ineptness.

Few things are as worrisome as government teaming up with big business to take away citizens' rights.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Mussolini

This is how Russia is these days, and this is where American politicians are taking the US.

The big Macy's on Herald Square had the same issue. Macy's has the whole block except for a tiny corner that has a small store (though now the building is owned or leased by Macy's)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/NY_Broadway_m_2005.jpg/300px-NY_Broadway_m_2005.jpg

Macy's also has a store on Queens Blvd. that is very striking -- a round department store. Well, almost round. One neighbor refused to move out:

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-03/22470925.jpg

If you look at the picture, you can see a notch in the otherwise perfectly round building -- that was to accommodate a piece of the holdout's yard. While I don't think the house is there today (IIRC, it is now a gas station), the notch remains

What I get from that story was the current owner purchased the land for an above market price hoping to leverage the city's desire for the property into a profit.

Someone (figures he wasn't verified (rolls eyes)) forgot to close their italics bracket. This should fix the problem now.

Okay, no more italics for anyone. Dougger used them all.

_@_v - from kings guide to nyc 1908...

city investing building at time largest office building in the world. 34 stories, 485 ft high covering plot of 27,000 sq ft - 13 acres per floor (the world trade center floors were only an acre each) room for 6000 tenants. the broadway wing was 38' by 315'. 6th avenue el had station on church street side.

_@_v - the little building it wrapped around was known as the wessels building. city investing bought their air rights to ensure light and air for their tower.

_@_v - if you can find it there was a reprint compilation of moses king's guides to new york city and brooklyn put out by the arno press back in 1977 (was a reprint from a 1974 Benjamin Blom complilation with a new intro from A.E. Santaniello). you got the full kings guides of 1896, 1908 and 1915 and the 1905 to brooklyn, new york as well as a back section with pix from 1903,1905, & 1911. best 20 bucks i ever spent

Yeah. We have that in Massachusetts, too. But when you have a Legislature that is so dominated by one party that the other can't even maintain a filibuster, they can prety much ignore any referendum they don't like. Or they can just decide to use procedural rules to get around putting anything on the ballot they don't like. It has happened here with bilingual education (we voted overwhelmingly to end it, they just decided we didn't know what we were voting for and ignored the results), taxes (we voted to end the emergency tax increase put in by Dukakis more than 20 years ago. They ignored that result too), gay marriage (they blocked putting it on the ballot despite the large number of people who signed the initiative..which as a good libertarian I wouldn't sign...marry your toaster for all it afects me) and various others. No, when your local or state government is a corrupt bunch of jackals who own the process lock stock and barrel, refereendums mean nothing, either.