[EastSideHBG]

Very interesting IMO, and a great topic for debate:

Pfizer to Leave City That Won Major Land-Use Case

By: Patrick McGeehan
The New York Times

From the edge of the Thames River in New London, Conn., Michael Cristofaro surveyed the empty acres where his parents’ neighborhood had stood, before it became the crux of an epic battle over eminent domain.

“Look what they did,” Mr. Cristofaro said on Thursday. “They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.”

That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer [PFE 17.59 -0.03 (-0.17%) ], the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use.

Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33909316

[Nowhereman1280]

Ok, I'll start:

Lol, the Federal Government is out of control and no one cares! Clearly there is something wrong when the government is completely controlled by corporations and most people believe the solution is to give more power to that government... Laughable... I hope many more violators of our basic freedoms are royally screwed over like this in the future...

[vid]

Pfizer wasn't really screwed over. New London wasn't really screwed over, though the city will lose revenue and jobs and its government will lose some of the public's confidence. The people living there will lose quite a bit, being forced to carry a higher tax burden and some of them having lost their homes.

I don't really find it funny.

[Cirrus]

reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use.That is just not true. To suggest that the New London case expanded government powers in any way whatsoever is completely false. The New London case confirmed government powers that have been in use for decades, at least. Had the case gone the other way, it would have created a new heretofore unknown restriction on government.

Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London The fact that New London has a stupid city staff that was too dumb to write in guarantees to their contract with Pfizer is irrelevant to the justness of the law here. Any contract worth the paper it's written on would include a long term lease with requirements for usage.

[mthq]

New London has a river named Thames... I should've known..

[WonderlandPark]

Nowhere man's avatar is somehow very appropriate for this thread

[leftopolis]

One thing that's not entirely clear to me(and I did read the whole article), is if Pfizer signed a contract that essentially committed them to moving in after the eminant domain action specifically for them. I'm guessing the Pfizer attorneys made sure that's not the case. If I've overlooked something regarding that, please let me know. It looks to me like the city simply offered them a huge carrot, without getting a signed commitment.

Having said that, this looks like another example proving that the multi-national corporations are in charge. The gov't and the people have no voice--it's "democracy" for show. Big Pharma and Big Insurance have ensured that the "Health Plan" going through Congress--is a big con. It's not "health for all"(which was the whole point), but actually mandates more business for the insurance middlemen. When it comes to big pharma(like Pfizer) they are not competing companies, they work in unison to get what they want. Oxycodone(pain med) manufacturers, have ensured that they have no US competion. No generics permitted(coincidently, the price went up 10-fold when they won that one), supplies are controlled making it difficult for patients to even get it, furthermore the "law" prevents US patients to legally purchase at a lower price from Canada for instance(not the case with all other meds). And yes, people with terminal illness experience severe pain.

Still not convinced that multi-nationals are the defacto government that does what it pleases, take a look at the Peace-Prize-Change-President(whom I voted for btw): The Military Industrial Complex continues to expand global hegemony(despite the US being broke as ever). The corporate puppet policies of Bush continue...just under a far more polite and articulate corporate whore.

This isn't about government powers over-stepping boundaries. Quite the contrary, it's about government bending over backwards for overly big corporations...with the resulting BOHICA(bend over here it comes again).

[Chicago Shawn]

Ok, I'll start:

Lol, the Federal Government is out of control and no one cares! Clearly there is something wrong when the government is completely controlled by corporations and most people believe the solution is to give more power to that government... Laughable... I hope many more violators of our basic freedoms are royally screwed over like this in the future...

The federal government had no involvement here. This involves a local government whose case was upheld by the supreme court.

[niwell]

I'm not sure why this seems so surprising to many, as this is the kind of thing that happens all the time in smaller municipalities in the name of economic development. Read: municipalities that are much more likely to give concessions to retain/attract businesses which are deemed "vital" to the local economy as compared to larger cities. While eminent domain (referred to expropriation in Canada) is rarely used anymore in situations like this, from my understanding municipalities are well within their legal right to do so. Not entirely sure how the process works in the US but they are here in any event. Granted it can be political suicide, particularly if the project falls through as in this case.

Without knowing the specifics I'd venture to guess there are a number of factors at play here. Inter-urban competition plays a big one, in where you have a number of municipalities within an urban region vying for the tax benefits of business. In situations like this the economic development divisions/departments/commissions of a municipality are willing to bend over backwards to ensure tax revenue remains within their boundaries. Even though Pfizer moved to a nearby location which is probably insignificant in a regional context New London is missing out on the direct benefits.

A form of tax increment financing seems to have been used, which while effective for attracting development can easily backfire if companies move out before the full tax rate comes into play. Which likely means there were insufficient provisions to ensure that not only would Pfizer move to the new location, but they would be on the hook financially if they chose to move. There are examples of municipalities enforcing TIF developments to do just this, but not really sure how common that is. Municipal policy makers are great at formulating policy in which the intent is clear, yet is legally problematic. Happens all the time here and is incredibly frustrating.

[leftopolis]

The federal government had no involvement here. This involves a local government whose case was upheld by the supreme court.

While I agree with you to the extent that this was a situation of a local government, citizens who felt victimized by an eminent domain land grab which didn't pan out for them, and a multinational corporation...the supreme court IS one of the three branches of the federal government. Since they ruled on it, it's a fallacy to say they had no involvement.

[Jasonhouse]

Corporate welfare never pays...

[JordanL]

That is just not true. To suggest that the New London case expanded government powers in any way whatsoever is completely false. The New London case confirmed government powers that have been in use for decades, at least. Had the case gone the other way, it would have created a new heretofore unknown restriction on government.

Please reference the case which previously established that local governments could seize land through eminent domain to give to a private party.

Because with that allowance, the 4th amendment now only protects you from seizure for a criminal investigation.

[LSyd]

Please reference the case which previously established that local governments could seize land through eminent domain to give to a private party.

Because with that allowance, the 4th amendment now only protects you from seizure for a criminal investigation.

i think it was Detroit v. Poletown; Detroit cleared out working-class Polish community to clear land for a GM plant.

maybe the city didn't "give" the land to GM...but close enough.

-

[LMich]

LSyd,

Just to be totally clear, Poletown Neighborhood Council vs. City of Detroit was overturned by the Michigan State Supreme Court in 2004, and it was a state case, not a national case. Kelo v. City of New London set precendent, alone, at the federal level for using eminent domain for "economic development," and only citing the Poletown case as an example.

[EastSideHBG]

One thing that's not entirely clear to me(and I did read the whole article), is if Pfizer signed a contract that essentially committed them to moving in after the eminant domain action specifically for them. I'm guessing the Pfizer attorneys made sure that's not the case. If I've overlooked something regarding that, please let me know. It looks to me like the city simply offered them a huge carrot, without getting a signed commitment.

Having said that, this looks like another example proving that the multi-national corporations are in charge. The gov't and the people have no voice--it's "democracy" for show. Big Pharma and Big Insurance have ensured that the "Health Plan" going through Congress--is a big con. It's not "health for all"(which was the whole point), but actually mandates more business for the insurance middlemen. When it comes to big pharma(like Pfizer) they are not competing companies, they work in unison to get what they want. Oxycodone(pain med) manufacturers, have ensured that they have no US competion. No generics permitted(coincidently, the price went up 10-fold when they won that one), supplies are controlled making it difficult for patients to even get it, furthermore the "law" prevents US patients to legally purchase at a lower price from Canada for instance(not the case with all other meds). And yes, people with terminal illness experience severe pain.

Still not convinced that multi-nationals are the defacto government that does what it pleases, take a look at the Peace-Prize-Change-President(whom I voted for btw): The Military Industrial Complex continues to expand global hegemony(despite the US being broke as ever). The corporate puppet policies of Bush continue...just under a far more polite and articulate corporate whore.

This isn't about government powers over-stepping boundaries. Quite the contrary, it's about government bending over backwards for overly big corporations...with the resulting BOHICA(bend over here it comes again).
:yes: :hell:

[blockski]

LSyd,

Just to be totally clear, Poletown Neighborhood Council vs. City of Detroit[/b] was overturned by the Michigan State Supreme Court in 2004, and it was a state case, not a national case. [i]Kelo v. City of New London set precendent, alone, at the federal level for using eminent domain for "economic development," and only citing the Poletown case as an example.

Kelo is one of the most misunderstood Supreme Court decisions of all time.

Kelo took the existing case law and set the lower bound of what is acceptable for government takings. Some states allowed taking for economic development, some did not. Kelo said that was OK, but states were free to be more restrictive (as many states already were more restrictive). It did not force states to allow use of eminent domain for economic development, nor did it change the statutes of states that were already using eminent domain for economic development.

The Supreme Court has a long history of deferring to the states to best decide the rules for eminent domain, and this case is no different.

Also, this is not an assessment of federal powers of eminent domain - it is a supreme court ruling about the extent of state eminent domain. Federal eminent domain is subject to more restrictions and is very rarely used.

[krudmonk]

Pfizer set to stun?




sorry...

[Cirrus]

Please reference the case which previously established that local governments could seize land through eminent domain to give to a private party.At the federal level this was a case without much legal precedent, however as a practical matter this is a freedom that local governments have been using for decades. I can give you a dozen pre-Kelo examples off the top of my head, and 1,000 more with research.

We can argue about the appropriateness of such actions, but the historic ability of governments to take them is not in dispute. Governments have been doing this for a long time, case law or no case law.

[JordanL]

At the federal level this was a case without much legal precedent, however as a practical matter this is a freedom that local governments have been using for decades. I can give you a dozen pre-Kelo examples off the top of my head, and 1,000 more with research.

We can argue about the appropriateness of such actions, but the historic ability of governments to take them is not in dispute. Governments have been doing this for a long time, case law or no case law.

Perhaps, though I find it specious to pretend that the 10th Amendment overrides the 4th, when the 10th specifically states that it delegates only rights which are NOT enumerated.

The 10th Amendment is by far the least correctly applied amendment of them all. As it is written, the 10th Amendment should confer MANY powers to the states that the federal government claims for itself, and should also deny several rights to the states which the federal government refuses to dirty its hands with.

I also find it rather ridiculous of your to cite the fact that it has been done as a justification that such action was always Constitutional and legal. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[blockski]

Perhaps, though I find it specious to pretend that the 10th Amendment overrides the 4th, when the 10th specifically states that it delegates only rights which are NOT enumerated.

The 10th Amendment is by far the least correctly applied amendment of them all. As it is written, the 10th Amendment should confer MANY powers to the states that the federal government claims for itself, and should also deny several rights to the states which the federal government refuses to dirty its hands with.

I also find it rather ridiculous of your to cite the fact that it has been done as a justification that such action was always Constitutional and legal. The two have nothing to do with each other.

The 10th amendment is irrelevant in this case, since this is talking about state use of eminent domain.

Susette Kelo and the fellow petitioners argued that Connecticut's eminent domain usage was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said it was not, and was within the maximum boundaries of state use - though individual states are free to be more restrictive. Many states already had more restrictive laws regarding eminent domain, many passed more laws specifically in response to Kelo, but all of that happened at the State level.

The only federal role was to ask if those state laws violated the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment never comes into play.

Like I said, this is one of the most misunderstood Supreme Court cases in history. It's an extraordinarily narrow decision, extremely deferential to the individual states - and yet it's seen as a sweeping decision and enormous expansion of federal power. Neither of those is remotely close to being true.

[Cirrus]

I also find it rather ridiculous of your to cite the fact that it has been done as a justification that such action was always Constitutional and legal.I didn't say that. I said the case did not grant any new powers to governments, but rather confirmed powers already in use. Saying something is "not illegal" isn't necessarily the same as saying it's "legal".

If you want to get riled up over this use of eminent domain be my guest, but don't say the Kelo case made legal something that was illegal. It made legal something that was widely practiced, ill defined, and most certainly not illegal.

[Mr Downtown]

Please reference the case which previously established that local governments could seize land through eminent domain to give to a private party.

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

Kelo merely affirmed longstanding existing law. Somehow conservatives managed to describe a refusal to engage in judicial activism as an apocalyptic example of judicial activism.

[Chicago Shawn]

While I agree with you to the extent that this was a situation of a local government, citizens who felt victimized by an eminent domain land grab which didn't pan out for them, and a multinational corporation...the supreme court IS one of the three branches of the federal government. Since they ruled on it, it's a fallacy to say they had no involvement.

Not really, because but nothing has changed. The court ruling did not do anything to restrict or permit the use of eminent domain, it just upheld current policy. Had the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the outcome would be the same. If anything, this court ruling has caused the use eminent domain to become more restrictive as some individual states amended their constitutions after the ruling to explicitly prohibit eminent domain in cases of private involvement.

[blockski]

If anything, this court ruling has caused the use eminent domain to become more restrictive as some individual states amended their constitutions after the ruling to explicitly prohibit eminent domain in cases of private involvement.

Which, as the majority opinion in Kelo clearly states, would be a desirable outcome - as the Supreme Court has always been extremely deferential to state law and state contexts when it comes to state use of eminent domain.

[JordanL]

The 10th amendment is irrelevant in this case, since this is talking about state use of eminent domain.

Susette Kelo and the fellow petitioners argued that Connecticut's eminent domain usage was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said it was not, and was within the maximum boundaries of state use - though individual states are free to be more restrictive. Many states already had more restrictive laws regarding eminent domain, many passed more laws specifically in response to Kelo, but all of that happened at the State level.

The only federal role was to ask if those state laws violated the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment never comes into play.

Like I said, this is one of the most misunderstood Supreme Court cases in history. It's an extraordinarily narrow decision, extremely deferential to the individual states - and yet it's seen as a sweeping decision and enormous expansion of federal power. Neither of those is remotely close to being true.

The 10th Amendment is specifically what allows the SCOTUS to be be deferential to the states. Kelo's argument was that the 4th Amendment of the federal Constitution was being violated by the state. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not the case, explicitly mandating that seizing property for private parties is not an "unreasonable search or seizure".

The SCOTUS then found that as the action did not violate the 4th Amendment, the 10th Amendment reserved such power to the individual states to determine.

The Kelo ruling did in fact make a change to understanding of US law that had not been made before. They ruled that seizing property for private parties was not a violation of the 4th Amendment, because that is the ONLY way that the Supreme Court is able to defer to the states, (see: Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade).

Anyone stating that the Kelo decision had absolutely no impact on US understanding of eminent domain is entirely mistaken. Before the Kelo ruling it had never been determined whether seizing property for a private party was an unreasonable seizure.

[Mr Downtown]

Once the object is within the authority of [the legislature], the means by which it will be attained is also for [them] to determine. Here, one of the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But the means of executing the project are for [the legislature], and [the legislature] alone, to determine once the public purpose has been established. See Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., supra; cf. Highland v. Russell Car Co., 279 U.S. 253. The public end may be as well or better served through an [p34] agency of private enterprise than through a department of government -- or so the [legislature] might conclude. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects. What we have said also disposes of any contention concerning the fact that certain property owners in the area may be permitted to repurchase their properties for redevelopment in harmony with the over-all plan. That, too, is a legitimate means which [the legislature] and its agencies may adopt, if they choose.
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, at 33 (1954)