Uncategorized

Eminent domain was strong enough for good urban planning already.

As promised, I have been thinking further about the Kelo decision, and I have fallen pretty decidedly into the dissent camp. My ambivalence before fell into a few main categories:

• The government can already take property if it deems it necessary and hey, economic development does help a lot of people out.
• There's a market distortion that takes place because of the fact that often it's "all or nothing" for the developer.
• If a city planner wants to make her city more "green," this decision could help -- a private company could essentially be given this task and the city would allow them free reign over a certain chunk of land.

I will refute these below the fold but I want to put this up here: The ruling doesn't prevent states or cities from passing laws against this sort of thing. Check out the Castle Coalition if you are not in agreement with the ruling and want to do something.

Publishing break

As attentive readers of Daily Grist already know, Grist kicks off its two-week summer publishing break next week, during which most of us decamp for some much-needed R&R. Normal -- and by that I mean extraordinary -- publishing resumes on July 11.

However, the blogosphere never sleeps! Or shuts up! So Gristmill will be puttering along, delivering the daily content so dearly valued by our thousands hundreds dozens of readers. Our valiant blogtern Andy will do what he does so well, and he'll be joined by some exciting guests.

So stay tuned. And a very happy summer to all of you.

The precautionary project

Speaking of the precautionary principle ... witness the Precautionary Project.

(Via Uneasy Chair)

Readers talk back about eco-friendly cities, eco-friendly clothes, and more

  Re: City City Bang Bang Dear Editor: Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels definitely deserves props for pulling cities together in common cause to achieve the Kyoto Protocol. However, Nickels has […]

Reason number 5,233,294,049 …

... why it's great to be a vegetarian.

Beyond Econ 101.

The ongoing Euro-spat has pushed the debate over agricultural subsidies to the forefront. While the US does not quite have the highest ratio of farm subsidies to GDP, it's pretty close.

When it comes to subsidies, I'm of the opinion that there had better be a very good reason for them, and I don't see a good reason for farm subsidies in the US or any other developed country. I believe it was this article that led me to my current position; there are many other arguments that take the Econ 101 approach to subsidies -- they're an unnecessary distortion of the market.

Tom Friedman today resorted to calling us all French because both the US and France are clinging to these outdated subsidies.

But setting these traditional arguments aside, I think there is a distinctly environmental line of argument against farm subsidies:

But hey, it’s better than nothing.

Among the press releases meandering into the Grist inbox this morning was one from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. The council's weary flacks put their best spin on today's Senate energy-bill vote with this headline:

"Senate Energy Bill: A Substantial Improvement Relative to the House Bill and to Bills Passed in 2003."

I'm laughing with them, not at them. By all means, let's take what we can get.

The Spirit is Willing, But the Fest is (Two) Weeks

Grist staff takes semiannual, semi-deserved break; readers mourn While most of you have already trundled out the grill and scooped the beetles out of your pool, Grist staffers haven’t yet […]

The Supreme Court has expanded eminent domain to the point of absurdity and invited corruption.

I was just getting ready to write a long and involved post on Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court decision extending eminent domain, when lo, Andy beat me to it. So I'll try to keep it short (for that, Andy, our readers thank you.)

I do not share Andy's ambivalence. I think it's a terrible thing. I'm all for eminent domain, but this is ridiculous. Kelo crosses a fairly bright line for me and gets my nascent libertarian instincts all fired up.

More below the fold.

Supreme Court extends eminent domain powers

If I had an adamant opinion about the Supreme Court's decision today to extend eminent domain by determining that "economic development" qualifies as "public use" and its implications for city planning, I would certainly be posting that right now. But it's only been about eight hours since they released their opinion, and if I could come up with a well thought out opinion on such a complicated issue that fast, I'd probably be on the Court itself. I have been further convinced that these are nine of the smartest and most well-read people on the planet, though.

So instead of that adament and definitive opinion, I'll just outline some of the issues I was thinking about as I read through Stevens' opinion and the dissenting remarks of O'Connor and Thomas. (Kennedy also wrote a concurring opinion.)

I'll do it below the fold though.