THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
*1* John Hinderaker's Second Thoughts on Kelo: A proper understanding of property rights suggests that the Kelo decision wasn't so bad after all, never divulges the "proper understanding" of property rights to which his article's subtitle alludes, but one can glean his position from his view of the Kelo decision: Property ownership is not as much a right as a privilege. If the government decides that there's a really good reason to force you to give up your property, so be it. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?
But beyond Hinderaker's wrongheaded view of property rights, he gets a number of the particulars wrong as well. While it is true that eminent domain was not used to build a Pfizer facility in New London, Justice Thomas got it exactly right when he emphasized that the project was "suspiciously agreeable" to Pfizer. Indeed, Pfizer--the "10,000 pound gorilla," according to the City's expert in court--had every one of its "requirements" met in the development plan: a luxury hotel for its visitors, upscale housing for its employees, and office space for its contractors, as well as the overall "redevelopment" of the area adjacent to the Pfizer facility, where homeowners Susette Kelo and others reside.
Even without Pfizer's involvement, the use of eminent domain would still be objectionable on both legal and moral grounds because, as the Supreme Court recognized, the whole point was simply to transfer property from one private owner to another--a private developer--in the hope of obtaining more tax revenue and more jobs.
Hinderaker points out that eminent domain can still be used for legitimate public projects and then asks, "Are the rights of Americans any less imperiled by condemnation in support of publicly-owned projects?" Emphatically, yes, for the simple reason that if eminent domain is restricted to purely public uses, there will be fewer chances for eminent domain to be used.
Is it so hard to see that if government power is offered to the highest bidder, the result will be a lot of bids to use it? Indeed, the Institute for Justice documented more than 10,000 instances in which eminent domain was either used or threatened to transfer land from one private owner to another in only a five-year period. (See www.castlecoalition.org/report). Has the entire field of public choice economics, rent seeking behavior, and special interest influence escaped Hinderaker's notice?
Hindraker also believes that the "glare of publicity" and the constitutional requirement for "just compensation" sufficiently guard against abuse. Experience shows that that nothing could be further from the truth. Setting aside the 10,000 examples of well-publicized abuse, the Kelo case itself disproves the idea that the "glare of publicity" will stop tax-hungry municipalities from abusing their citizens' rights. For years, the homeowners have received sympathetic news coverage in national and regional outlets. Last week, hundreds of protestors from New London and around the country gathered to urge the City Council to let the homeowners stay and to develop the other 90 vacant acres it already owns. City officials were, to say the least, unmoved.
Ordinary citizens simply lack the clout of big-box retailers and deep-pocketed developers. In Newark, N.J., officials want to raze 14 downtown acres in the Mulberry Street area to build 2,000 upscale condo units and retail space. The Municipal Council voted against the plan in 2003--but then reversed its decision eight months later following re-election campaigns in which developers contributed thousands of dollars.
Moreover, Hindraker provides no evidence to support his claim that eminent domain victims are "compensated generously." How can they be when the government holds all the cards, especially after Kelo? Having no choice in the matter does not leave property owners in a very strong bargaining position. Of course, for Wilhelmena Dery, who has lived all of her 87 years in the same New London home, there is no such thing as "just" compensation. For relocated businesses, the loss of goodwill and prime location can be ruinous.
More to the point, the requirement to pay for the property is hardly an adequate check on abuse. Not only is "just" compensation often quite unjust and anything but generous, but developers often pay for acquisition and related legal costs--not the government. In such cases, there is no financial check on the abuse of eminent domain at all.
It's true, as Hinderaker points out, that previous precedent allowed private use condemnations to eradicate blight. That is unfortunate, but it does not make the Court's previous decisions correct, nor does it justify the use of eminent domain simply to transfer land to a private party when blight does not exist. Hinderaker sounds very much like Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi when she referred last week to the Kelo decision as the "word of God" not to be challenged by us mere mortals.
There are a lot of things one could call Hinderaker's position. I had thought "conservative" was not one of them. It's been disappointing, to say the least, to see conservatives make excuses for the Court's awful ruling. Fortunately, those folks appear to be in the minority both on the right and among all Americans regardless of ideology. Judging by the public's overwhelmingly negative reaction to the decision, ordinary Americans still understand why owning property is a right, rather than a privilege to be disposed of by judges, politicians, developers, and their cheerleaders on the left and right. It seems Kelo was a test case in more ways than one.
--Steve Simpson is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represented the New London homeowners.
*2* I appreciate Steven G. Calabresi's good intentions, but what a silly article. Has Schumer ever acted with good faith and integrity? But that's all beside the point because Schumer and company are not entitled to the solicitor general documents, and the White House obviously has no obligation, or reason, to turn them over.
The next time the subject comes up at a White House press briefing, Scott McClellan's response should be: Sure, we'll turn over the documents...when pigs fly. Next question...
--Charles R. Vail
*3* Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn's article tracing the ties between Iraq, Sudan, and al Qaeda is extremely interesting and important to say the least.
More fascinating, however, is, in light of published evidence, how any American, especially those who hold positions of leadership and influence in this country (political figures, news outlets, etc.) can possibly disregard the threat that the Islamofacists pose, or even entertain the idea that Iraq is a distraction from the overall defeat of al Qaeda.
--James Oliver
*4* Paul Mirengoff raises some interesting points in his discussion of affirmative action. In an article summing up the Supreme Court career of Justice O'Connor, the New York Times said that O'Connor tended to be in support of policy decisions that had gained popular support such as abortion and affirmative action.
While there may be some debate as to the support for abortion as expressed in recent rulings by the court, there is no question that there is no popular support for affirmative action. Every time it has been put to a vote, including in Blue states like California and Washington, it loses hands down. But neither O'Connor, nor the New York Times, seems to recognize this.
--Aaron H. Frank
*5* Edward Morrissey's reporting on the developing scandal at Air America brings to mind the mainstream media's coverage of Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents into his socks. Compare that coverage to that of Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame affair. One cannot help but wonder what the difference would be if Karl Rove had purloined classified documents and Sandy Berger had spoken to Mr. Novak!
--Ann Weller
*6* Hugh Hewitt has put his finger on one of the major obstacles to the success of Air America. Liberals or Democrats (or liberal Democrats) find Republican-targeted satire to be an amusing diversion--but not a social or political strategy. Democrats don't need someone like Al Franken or anyone else to tell us what to think. On the other hand, I find in most conservative media, with rare exceptions, essentially the same talking points. I have to credit conservatives for their organization and unity of mind, but I, like many other independent-minded Democrats, prefer to think for myself. I have never listened to Air America, but I would hate to think that Democrats had turned into automatons like the listeners of Hannity and Limbaugh. Maybe that's the reason Franken's show is not doing so well. Al Franken's satire is funny, but I would rarely quote him as fact. Democrats just do not possess a mass mentality. It does tend to get us into political trouble, but I'll take pluralism any day.
--Tom Martin
*7* I'm happy Duncan Currie is happy, but I disagree strongly with much of his thinking. Hockey is truly a team sport. I find my interest in team sports is strongly determined by how much a single player influences a game. For example, I cannot remember the last time I watched an NBA game and football is fast becoming a QB-to-receiver show. The thought of a hard-fought team effort of 65 minutes determined by a one-on-one shootout appalls me. I do not like shootouts in soccer, and I don't care to see them in hockey.
Currie fails to address the issue of fighting in the NHL. I am familiar with the argument about constant contact leading to frustration. I played (and refereed) rugby for over twenty years, where there are 30 players on the field and more contact (without padding) than in hockey. And only one--one!--referee on the pitch. Yet there is no fighting. Why? Because when two players look about to get into it, the referee walks up, blows his whistle once, and the players separate. The consequences of not doing so are dire. Currently in the NHL, when two players square off the referee stands between the opposing teams to keep them from joining the fray, while the two linesmen wrestle the combatants to the ice (by the way, as a sporting official, I find this very demeaning to the linesmen). Instead, why not try this: The linesmen move to each team to keep them apart, while the referee skates up to the fighters, counts to three, and blows his whistle. Any blow struck after the whistle is a game misconduct--with continued fighting resulting in multiple game suspensions.
I look forward to the resumption of NHL play. But I will be one fan who leaves the arena at the end of OT (which I am also not crazy about).
--Tom Roshetar
*8* I liked Duncan Currie's article on the NHL, with the exception of point #3 on the rules changes. The reason why penalty shots are called the "most exciting play in hockey" is because they are rare and should stay that way. Back when I was a kid in the 1980s, a club might go a whole season without having a penalty shot attempt. You'd better believe that we would become transfixed at the radio or TV screen when such a rare opportunity presented itself. Making penalty shots a commonplace event will quickly rob them of their thrill. This is to say nothing of an assault on the sport's longstanding tradition which allows for tie scores (at least during the regular season). Is the sport trying to win converts on its own merits or trying to be like everybody else?
The other question for misguided shootout-ists is, What about all the classic marathon overtime playoff games that will no longer take place if the shootout virus spreads to the playoffs? Essentially, shootouts break a team sport down into purely an individual skills competition. Should baseball settle a tied game by dropping extra innings and just having a home run derby? The NBA could have a 3-point competition. These would "keep fans in their seats" too. No, this is a very bad idea. Hockey is plenty exciting without this extra circus distracting from the game. One would think fans could get enough excitement seeing their team play 60 minutes a night, approximately 3 days a week, for about 8 months a year but apparently not.
--Kirk Morrison
*9* I hope you Duncan Currie is right about the rule changes bringing back the style of hockey I grew up with (the rushes up and down the ice and the 6-5 games).
Thanks for bringing up hockey at all. I don't know if the fans will come back elsewhere in the sunbelt, but since we won the Cup last year the fans will definitely be back here in Tampa.
--Chris Fontana
*10* Duncan Currie should try watching the college game--it's faster and better--but they trap there, and they don't have the red line. How about getting rid of the ability to ice the puck while killing penalties?
Gregg Anderson