11 November 2009

Pfizer sticks it to New London

More than four years ago, I wrote on this blog about the Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court case, a landmark victory for towns and cities looking to use eminent-domain powers to achieve economic-development ends--a debate in which the idea of "public benefit" was used as the definition of the Fifth Amendment's phrase "public use."

At the time, New London, CT was trying to clear out the residents of its Fort Trumbull neighborhood in order to make room for a hotel, health club, and office complex, all facilities designed to enhance the area, which was dominated by a large R&D facility owned by Pfizer.

Well, as it happens there are no spandex-clad people exercising in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood--the buildings still stand condemned, and the redevelopment was never completed. Nor, it seems will it be: in what must be a monumental tragedy for the city of New London, Pfizer has announced it will pull out of this facility and move its R&D operations over the river to its center in Groton.

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal puts it best:
[Pfizer's move is] especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.
A train-station project in my home town took a strip of land from a warehouse owner under eminent domain. At the time, the owner objected, saying (and here he's backed up by no less an authority than the United States Constitution) that he was due compensation for the land he lost. The town, in order to forestall a lawsuit, groused about his outrageous claims but eventually compensated him with $1. Their position was that the economic development spurred by the new train station would increase the value of his land, and that should be enough. Well, years later, the train station is not built and the development company hired to do the work is bankrupt.

Let's not think the issue of eminent-domain abuse is dead.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

10 November 2009

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists - Taking Liberties - CBS News

In a disturbing echo of the White House's war on Fox News, the Justice Department has demanded the personal information of everyone visiting an online news site during one particular day. Moreover, they appended a gag order to the subpoena asking the news site (!) not to report on the request.

It's possible that this was just a local US attorney "going rogue," according to the director of a press-freedom organization:
Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."

Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. "I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."
I don't know that I'm so sure, since in the same article it's stated that the DOJ can't subpoena a member of the press without the "express authorization of the attorney general." Moreover, the administrator of the site in question, indymedia.us, says she was threatened with prosecution for obstruction if she went public with news of the subpoena.

Technorati Tags: , ,