Taking Property - Bush's landgrab -- and the New York Times' (eminent domain abuse)

In The New York Times the other day, columnist Nicholas D. Kristof took George W. Bush to task for "grabbing land for a new baseball stadium in Arlington for his Texas Rangers baseball team." Actually, "took to task" is a bit of an understatement. Kristof described Bush's activities as "a sordid tale of cronyism, of misuse of power, of cozy backroom money-grubbing -- a more pressing threat to American business than outright criminality." He called Bush's dealings appalling. "Even Kazakhstan," he said, "would blush at such practices."

What sort of offense, exactly, did Bush commit? "Mr. Bush and the Rangers' owners conspired with city officials to seize private property that would be handed over to the Bush group." The seized property included not only the stadium site but also nearby land that the Rangers planned to sell or develop at a tidy profit.

Such cronyism is indeed "a more pressing threat to American business than outright criminality" because it clouds the very concept of private property. It's a scandal, all right -- the scandal being not that Bush and friends broke the rules but that they played by them. The scandal, in other words, is the rules.

From time immemorial, governments have wielded the power of eminent domain, by which they can take private property for public use, so long as they compensate the owners. Traditionally, "public use" has meant use for roads, airports, bridges, military bases, and other public facilities or services. Toward the middle decades of the last century, however, civic authorities won from the courts the power to condemn land that was "blighted": so rundown or neglected as to amount to a public nuisance. Cities used this power to designate old tenement neighborhoods as "slums," raze them, and build public housing -- one of the great urban-policy blunders of the last century, but that's another story. The Bush-Rangers- Arlington type of landgrab represents a newer sort of phenomenon.

In the last decade or so, it has become common for city leaders to define "blighted" as: "Not developed as nicely as we'd prefer." Or: "Not developed by the people we'd prefer." With that as their rationale, state and local officials take from one owner to give to another. "The condemnation of people's property for the benefit of another private party is a major, nationwide problem," says Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice, a public- interest law fim that contests what it regards as eminent- domain abuse.

State officials in Mississippi were understandably eager to attract jobs when they offered a variety of inducements and subsidies to Nissan for a big new truck factory. The state also offered Nissan 1,500 acres of rural land. The trouble was that two of the families who lived there -- black families of modest means, who had been on the land for 60 years -- refused to sell. When the state asserted eminent domain, officials offered what have recently become standard rationales.

"If you make a promise to a company like Nissan, you have to be able to follow through," an official with the Mississippi Development Authority told The Times last year. Are such promises necessary? Absolutely. "If we're going to improve the quality of life for Mississippians, we've got to bring good jobs that are meaningful jobs," Gov. Ronnie Musgrove told ABCNews.com in April. And are new jobs in the public interest? Of course. "Acquiring property for the use of economic development purposes is in fact a public use," a lawyer for the state told ABCNews.com. So if public officials are doing their job, using eminent domain to help developers shop for land isn't so much forbidden as required.

In New London -- Connecticut's fourth-poorest city -- authorities sought to condemn a long-established neighborhood and turn it over to developers. "No one contends that the Fort Trumbull neighborhood is blighted," The Times reported last year. "Rather, the city contends that the area, which had half a dozen residential streets and much bigger swaths of abandoned or vacant land, should support greater development." That was why Susette Kelo, a homeowner who turned down the city's offers to buy her house, came home the day before Thanksgiving two years ago and found a condemnation notice nailed to her front door. "She said she was told that for as long as she remained in the house, she would have to pay rent."

Officials who stretch the term "public use" to encompass "better private use" often mean well. Presumably the Arlington, Texas, officials who helped out George W. and his stadium pals thought they were doing the city a big favor. So, perhaps, do the officials in Mesa, Ariz., who seek to condemn Randy Bailey's brake shop as part of a deal to attract a bright new Ace Hardware store to the site. (Bailey, with the Institute for Justice's help, is fighting.)

In a better-planned world, something other than Bailey's 27- year-old shop might indeed be located on Mesa's busiest corner. But property is held sacrosanct in America not to protect the rich and powerful, who always make out all right, but to protect the poor from the predations of the rich and powerful: from people like George W. Bush, and also from businesses like... The New York Times.

The Times is planning to build a new corporate headquarters. The building will be a marvel of contemporary architecture, with 52 stories, dual skins of glass and white ceramic rods, and a small grove of maples outside a rooftop conference room at the summit. Casting about for a location, The Times and its partner, a developer called Forest City Ratner Companies, lit upon Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets, in the somewhat grubby neighborhood of the Port Authority bus terminal. The Empire State Development Corp. -- New York's economic-development agency -- promptly condemned the whole site.

Various critics and outside observers say that The Times will get the property for substantially less than its market value. The Village Voice recently quoted a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of real estate finance as saying that the developers were getting "at least a 25 percent discount." The developers dispute the point. Not in dispute is that taxpayers will shoulder several tens of millions of dollars of the project's ultimate cost, and that dozens of businesses, firms, and other denizens will be displaced.

Why is the government stepping in? "This will be an important final piece of the puzzle to revitalize the entire Times Square area," a spokesman for the development corporation told me. A smaller puzzle piece is Sidney Orbach. He and his two brothers own a 16-story office building on the condemned block.

"I would have said this couldn't happen in the United States," Orbach told me recently in a phone interview. He said of his building, "It used to be a factory building, and we totally converted it to an office building. It became a very, very desirable place. We just want to keep the building. We've put a lot of money, energy, and sweat into this." Meanwhile, "I am now sitting with a tremendous amount of vacancy because no one wants to rent space that has a good chance of being condemned."

Around the corner, on Eighth Avenue, is Arnold Hatters. The shop has been on the block since 1960, when Arnold Rubin opened it. His 30-year-old son Mark grew up with the store and is now its general manager. "Having to move is scaring the hell out of me," Mark Rubin says. "This is a gold mine location," near the bus terminal, Pennsylvania Station, and the hat-intensive theatrical industry. Rubin doubts he could afford as large a store elsewhere, and he fears that many of his customers may not move with him.

"As far as I can remember, this has always been our family's breadbasket," Rubin says. "I think it's atrocious that for the sake of a private corporation like The New York Times, somebody has the right to take it away from us." He might understand if the block were being condemned for a city road or hospital. "But no one has explained to me why they have to do this so The New York Times can have a big new skyscraper here."

The Orbachs and two other groups of property owners are challenging the condemnation under both the U.S. Constitution and the New York state constitution. Their chances are considered slim. New York has a long tradition of using eminent domain aggressively (remember Robert Moses?), and in this case the landowners are arrayed against the combined forces of City Hall, a leading developer, and the country's most powerful newspaper.

It all looks like a sordid tale of cronyism, of misuse of power, of cozy backroom money-grubbing -- a more pressing threat to American business than outright criminality. Even Kazakhstan would blush at such practices. Some crusading liberal newspaper in New York really ought to run an editorial. Or at least a column.

Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal and a frequent contributor to REASON. This article was published by National Journal on July 26, 2002.

This should be the limits and officals attempting to take it beyond this meaning should be punished for theft of private property and jailed. The local, state, and federal government has used a tool that was only intended to be used to support the basic needs of government mainly defense. They have abused this power perhaps more so than any others it holds. I don't care who is doing this or for what noble profitable reason it serves it is still wrong. If a business wants property then the sale should be a private act done so at the buyer and sellers terms. If either refuses it should be the end of the issue. The local, state, and federal, government has no right to be a brokering agent no a vessel for theft.

Except in case of the founders intent government should not have the power to take private property nor force the sell thereof to achieve profit or benifit for any other citizen or bussiness. Government in using Eminent Domain should have to prove in a court of law if asked it's specific needs that requires the governments usage. Things like pro- sports arena's should not be considered as a function of government even to the recruitment of such on promises beyond it's constitutional and chartered powers. It is private interprise.

Public Use. Meaning that which was related to government functions.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now Webster 1828 {Noah Webster who signed the Constitution} defines that as

1. Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state, as opposed to a private statute or resolve, which respects an individual or a corporation only. Thus we say, public welfare, public good, public calamity, public service, public property.

2. Common to many; current or circulated among people of all classes; general; as public report; public scandal.

3. Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.

Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Matt.1.

4. Regarding the community; directed to the interest of a nation, state or community; as public spirit; public mindedness; opposed to private or selfish.

5. Open for general entertainment; as a public house.

6. Open to common use; as a public road.

7. In general, public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.

Amendment XIV

(1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now I do not call taking a persons private property via Eminent Domain for a Wal-mart, Pro-sports arena {for profit private ownership}, nor even factories for automobiles a Constitutional Right or avenue granted federal, state, or local government. It's simply not there. It is stated in a public term and not private as related in giving what is your private property over to another private business or person.

Webster makes the definition pretty clear in definition #1.

Let's look at Eminent Domain in Webster

Main Entry: eminent domain

Function: noun

Date: 1783

: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction.

A lot of people are going to get their knickers in a twist over what ought to be a simple matter of Constitutional law and practice, simply because George W. Bush made use of the deplored practice.

Let's get the partisanry out of the way, shall we? I like Dubya. I think he's a good man, one of a half-dozen decent men who've occupied the Oval Office since the Civil War. As the article notes early, he played by the rules. That doesn't make "the rules" good ones; it does exonerate Dubya for using them to his advantage.

Abuse of eminent domain is the corporatist face of socialism in the United States. "Free enterprise" is less than lovely when it's sustained by subsidies that all of us have to pay -- and land seized from its owners against their will, with terms and compensation to be set by a political figure, is a larger subsidy than any other I can think of at this hour.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Some facts on the Ballpark at Arlington.

Tenant: Texas Rangers (AL)
Opened: April 1, 1994
Surface: Bermuda Tifway 419 grass
Capacity: 49,178
Architects: David M. Schwarz Architectural Services (Washington, DC); HKS, Inc. (Dallas)
Construction: n/a
Owner: Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority
Cost: $191 million
Public financing: $135 million, or 71 percent, from a one-half-cent sales tax increase in the city of Arlington over 12 to 15 years.
Private financing: $56 million, or 29 percent, from the Rangers owners.
Location: Adjacent to Six Flags over Texas on the west side of the amusement park at the northwest corner of East Randol Mill Road and Ballpark Way. Left field (E) Ballpark Way, right field (S) E Randol Mill Road and parking lot, 1st base (W) Pennant Drive and parking lot, 3rd base (N) park, Copeland Road and I-30.
Dimensions: Left field: 334 ft.; left-center: 388 ft.; center field: 400 ft.; right-center deepest: 407 ft.; right-center: 381 ft.; right field: 325 ft.; backstop: 60 ft.; foul territory: small.
Fences: Left field: 14 ft.; center and right fields: 8 ft.

The Ballpark in Arlington is fan- and player-friendly with modern amenities that Rangers fans hadn’t seen in more than 20 years of play in Arlington Stadium. Outside the park, visitors can wander up Nolan Ryan Expressway and stroll along the Rangers Walk of Fame, reading about each team in franchise history on the brick path beneath them.

Once inside, there’s a 17,000-square-foot baseball museum and a children’s learning center, open year-round. Beyond the center-field wall, the park is enfolded by a four-story office building fronted by wrought-iron decor with a subtle cajun flavor. The top floor holds the offices of the Texas Rangers, the second and third floors are leased to local businesses, and the first floor has been turned into retail shops and ticket windows.

The field itself is located 22 feet below street level in order to avoid summer winds, and the seats alongside either dugout are as close to the baselines as any in baseball. The $191-million stadium took 23 months to build and features modern innovations like an infield tarp that is mounted on hydraulic lifts and stored below ground level along the left-field line. On top of the offices in center field stands a wind screen (measuring 42 feet by 430 feet) that minimizes the impact of stiff breezes.

Ballpark Trivia:
Granite and brick facade.
Covered pavilion porch in right field features pillars similar to of those at Tiger Stadium.
Outfield has many nooks and crannies reminiscent of Ebbets Field in Brooklyn.
Bullpens raised 5 feet above playing surface so fans can see who is warming up.
A total of 122 suites: 44 on the lower level; 78 on the upper level.
Construction began on April 2, 1992.
Part of a complex that will include two man-made lakes and a Riverwalk area featuring shops and restaurants.
Funding for the ballpark authorized by a January 19, 1991, referendum that approved a half-cent increase in the City of Arlington sales tax.
Five levels: lower deck, lower suites, club deck, upper suites, and upper deck.
Picnic area in front of four-story office building in center field.
Site of the 1995 All-Star Game.

It's a beautiful stadium, and Arlington and the Ranger fans are the real winners. And BTW, the speculators have been paid their extortion fees by The Rangers.

What sort of offense, exactly, did Bush commit? "Mr. Bush and the Rangers' owners conspired with city officials to seize private property that would be handed over to the Bush group." The seized property included not only the stadium site but also nearby land that the Rangers planned to sell or develop at a tidy profit.

Such cronyism is indeed "a more pressing threat to American business than outright criminality" because it clouds the very concept of private property. It's a scandal, all right -- the scandal being not that Bush and friends broke the rules but that they played by them. The scandal, in other words, is the rules.

The over-reach of all levels of government in using the theft of property by eminent domain will destroy this country if left unchecked and unopposed. See Property Rights and Landgrab for more info.

Ping.

Your idea of playing along and benefiting from crooked "rules" just shows me that ethics and integrity are forgotten words in your vocabulary.

Gee, thanks, B4, We love you too.

I think you know what your accusations are worth. Inasmuch as I go by my right name here, and have to stand behind everything I say here in real life, I always find it amusing to catch an arrow from someone like yourself, so willing to castigate and catechize others, but reluctant to let your identity be known so that others could measure you against your own statements.

Milton Friedman has noted that, given the current state of the law today, there are too many ways to use the law to get a critical edge on others for anyone to place himself above it. Law and government interference pervade our country. Shall I refuse my salary -- I'm a military engineer -- because it's funded by taxation? Shall I refuse to fly from government-run airports? Shall I refuse to allow my daughters to accept state scholarships or Pell grants for their college educations? Shall I part my hair behind... no, strike that, wrong controversy. But you get the idea.

Ayn Rand has noted that, given the extent to which each of us is mulcted for the support of the welfare state, we may justly regard any return we can get from it as restitution. Over the course of my life to date, I've paid out nearly a million dollars in taxes. Dubya, who's earned much more, has probably paid out much more. I think we're in line for quite a lot of restitution... not that I get much.

Both these thinkers have included a caveat: accepting what the law puts your way ought not to cloud your moral thinking. In particular, you should not cease to oppose such laws -- which I do. I would hope President Bush does as well.

The only cure for legal plunder, as thinkers from Frederic Bastiat on forward have said, is the reform of the law. In the meanwhile, don't base your decisions on the notion that even better-than-average men will refrain from taking whatever the law puts in their way. "When you have made evil the means of survival," Rand wrote, "do not expect men to remain good."

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.