New Haven Independent

Posted by: matt | November 13, 2009 9:14 PM

Fox news is a distraction from your point -- in fact, it rings hollow, as what could have been an interesting ideological point is stretched (badly) over the push-and-pull of contemporary partisan politics. Roping the conservative movement into your argument (painting Clarence Thomas as a misunderstood hero of the underclass in the process) is ridiculous.

You just happen to disagree with eminent domain as a tool for government to create certain kinds of development. And there are two examples of local governments making a decision that, over the years, many view as a mistake. OK -- an interesting thought, and an interesting parallel, so far as it goes.

But local politicians making bad decisions is not the exclusive domain of large cities, nor of Liberal Democratic politicians. And that ancient 26-acre mistake (in a city with a land area of more than 12000 acres) doom the remainder of the city to misery. New Haven is still a vibrant, multi-ethnic, working class city -- moreso than any other of Connecticut's towns or cities.

Instead of cursing a political error so ancient only the party affiliation of those who inflicted in are preserved in memory, could I suggest that you might also want to recognize that the aspect of our government most responsible for the sustained loyalty of urban residents to liberal politicians is the fact that government can actually work to right the wrongs of the past? Every place has an ugly strip of chain stores, a hole in the ground, broken-down bridge, or other error of judgement in its zoning plan. Today's politicians seem to be doing an alright job of sustaining what's good about the city -- and without the input of Clarence Thomas, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, and the like.

Posted by: coal miner | November 15, 2009 3:10 PM

Hi,

It is me.I am very interested in the liberal democrats's philosophy.

Posted by: harris | November 15, 2009 7:00 PM

Unfortunately, Matt, the two instances listed abover are only two of many. This is going on throughout the country, mostly, as the writer said, in Democratic ruled municipalities. And it's usually because of money in the pockets of those democrats. Never has a right been so misused as eminent domain. I learned in college that eminent domain was to be used for roads, utilities, and other public safety reasons, never so some fat cat can make millions of dollars for a shopping center or expensive housing development.
Thank God for Fox which has showcased many examples of misuse of eminent domain. Too bad it's so difficult for you to admit a Republican (Justice Thomas) was on the right side of this one.
Typical liberal myopia.

Posted by: matt | November 16, 2009 2:03 AM

Unfortunately, Matt, the two instances listed abover are only two of many. This is going on throughout the country, mostly, as the writer said, in Democratic ruled municipalities. And it's usually because of money in the pockets of those democrats.

That's an interesting assertion -- I haven't heard anything to suggest that this was the case in New London, do you have a citation? Corruption seems to be prosecuted about equally on both sides of the aisle here in Connecticut, but I'm interested to see anything that documents this in greater detail.

Too bad it's so difficult for you to admit a Republican (Justice Thomas) was on the right side of this one.

The Supreme Court didn't say that New London was wise or right to use eminent domain for private benefit -- only that they were within their legal authority to do so. Granted, I'm fine with legislating from the bench, and with the court overturning laws when those laws are wrong. But sadly, the Constitution does not outlaw stupid decisions by elected officials -- it just tasks citizens with voting those officials out of office.

Do you know the name of the official / officials responsible for destroying that old New Haven neighborhood all those years ago? Paul's references were obscure enough that there's really nothing to look up. But I wonder if those responsible paid any price at the ballot box.

[Editor's Note: Dick Lee was the mayor for 16 years during which urban renewal took place. 1954-1960. The development administrator overseeing the project was named Ed Logue. They are both dead.]

Posted by: ACR | November 16, 2009 1:12 PM

Well done Paul.

I recognize that many would rather believe all of those on their side are always correct in both the long and short run.

However the truth is, no group is so heavily laden with clairvoyants for such a notion to be within the realms of possibility.

It happens to Republicans too; we simply accept that our members are both diverse and occasionally wrong.
We don't like it either, but we will accept the cold cruel fact none-the-less.

The fashion with which former darling of the left Joe Lieberman is treated by those that were once counted as his adoring fans, clearly illustrates the left's level of disappointment when one of their own strays from the herd; even when the herd is heading for a cliff like so many Lemmings.

The notion that maybe the herd is wrong (even a little) never enters into the discussion at all.

Posted by: Sean | November 16, 2009 2:59 PM

What a mixed-up, muddle-headed oped. Mr. Bass slams "urban liberals", whom he blames for the Kelo decision, yet he points out in virtually the next breath that "it was the conservative justices" on the Supreme Court who supported the Kelo decision and "sided with..powerful private interests" to take over that neighborhood through eminent domain. So which is it, Mr. Bass? Is it "urban liberals" you hate who are responsible, or conservatives and their associated "powerful private interests" who are to blame for Kelo? And if it's the latter, then why in the world are you running on about "urban liberals"? And by the way, who exactly do you mean by "urban liberals"? Are you referring to African-Americans?

It's interesting that you only become outraged when it is a working class White neighborhood that's affected. As you acknowledge and as Justice Thomas pointed out, for decades after World War II working class Black neighborhoods were pulverized in the name of "urban renewal", their homes seized through eminent domain, with nary a peep of protest out of conservatives. The Houston Astrodome and New Orlean's Superdome both were built on land from Black neighborhoods through eminent domain.

The notion that eminent domain is only utilized by Democratic administrations to kick out working class Whites is patently ridiculous. Eminent domain is a tool that has been used for centuries and by administrations of every party background in every state in the union. It's curious that you reference neighborhoods along I-95 while not understanding that the land upon which I-95 stands was itself taken by eminent domain to build it. Are you really not aware that eminent domain was a critically important tool in the construction of our entire interstate transport system? You write that eminent domain is a "power that makes sense to be used for public safety". But eminent domain is rarely used in connection with public safety, but far more often to acquire land for public transportation, road systems, and special projects like stadiums.

Your assertion that it is Democrats who are telling working class people they know "better" is equally absurd. Perhaps you Republicans could listen to working class Americans who desperately need public health insurance, and have been telling Republicans for years. Perhaps you Republicans could listen to working class Americans who for decades have been trying to keep their union jobs, or trying to organize to get the protection and benefits of unions, instead of attacking union members and union jobs at every opportunity.

You don't know anything about eminent domain, Mr. Bass. You blame "urban liberals" for the Kelo development not working out, yet gloss over the fact that it was the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that supported the Kelo ruling.

And then you say that Democrats watch Fox News? In fact, they don't watch Fox News. A survey revealed that 87% of Fox News viewers voted for John McCain, a figure even higher than for all registered Republicans. So Fox's viewership is overwhelmingly conservative and hard-core Republican. We Democrats don't watch Fox, because their "news" is biased, frequently false and deliberately contrived, and their commentaries nonsensical. Actually, Fox is a lot like this oped.

The real question is how in the world this oped ever get front-paged at CT News Junkie?

[Paul Bass responds: It was the conservatives on the court who dissented in Kelo.]

Posted by: Norton Street | November 16, 2009 7:42 PM

Sean,
The interstate highway system has been a massive failure and has been an enormous waste of money. We should have invested in fixed path transit like rail, trolleys, trains, etc.

Posted by: abg | November 17, 2009 1:31 PM

So if you disagree with what happened in Kelo that means liberals are jerks, Clarence Thomas is a genius, and we should all tune into Fox News? This is as silly as the endless "durned libruls" straw-man crap in the comments section of this site. What happened in Kelo was completely different from 1960s redevelopment in New Haven. Kelo wasn't about utopian fantasies of "urban renewal" -- it had to do with misguided economic development practices arising from the obsessive need to raise tax revenue among Connecticut municipal fiefdoms, especially poor urban ones, where there is political pressure to expand services while keeping property taxes low. Was the proposed Long Wharf mall a product of liberalism? Is Connecticut's pandemic urban sprawl a product of liberalism? Of course not. "Liberalism" per se had nothing to do with Kelo, and liberal commentators in the media -- EJ Dionne, Bob Herbert, Eugene Robinson, etc. -- did not leap to the defense of New London. Quite the contrary. The Kelo situation was terribly mishandled, not because of ideology but because well-meaning public servants have to deal with conflicting pressures and they sometimes make mistakes in trying to balance them.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | November 17, 2009 4:36 PM

The media (and every comment so far) misstates the holding in Kelo. The Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Connecticut Supreme Court, which held that it was not a violation of the Connecticut constitution to use eminent domain for economic development. The U.S. Supreme Court held, consistent with over 200 years of U.S. law, that property decisions are generally within the realm of state courts, that federal courts rarely intervene, and that that the use of eminent domain did not rise to the level of a federal due process violation. The irony of the decision is that it upheld tradition conservative values, i.e. that questions of land use are reserved to the States. Kelo is actually a much smaller case than its public treatment, for the simple reason that it can be overcome by any state legislature. Any Supreme Court opinion that allows itself to be overturned by any State is not setting federal law - it is preserving state law. If you do not like Kelo, blame the state legislature. Both the Connectucut and U.S. Supreme Courts have made it clear that they can change the statute. The dissent was not preserving individual property rights - it was interfering with traditional State rights to control the land within its boundaries.