Like webloggers and journalists across the entire spectrum of American politics
but see NYT editorial) the lawyer in me (especially as an advocate for personal and
was wrongly decided.
Having lived in dying and fiscally desperate NE industrial cities, I admit that another
part of me wonders if there, in fact, shouldn’t be a way for major development
to go forward when there are a handful or fewer of holdouts, who refuse to sell and
are blocking major projects. (Perhaps there should be compensation for emotional
damages for the taking of a homestead, in addition to Fair Market Value, with a jury
deciding and the new private owner responsible for the payment.)
I went to bed last night thinking that our political system holds enough checks 
and balances to keep this Kelo power from being abused. I woke up this morning,
however, remembering my prior postings on the folly of economic development
plans in the real world. For example schmittle Italy. And, I recalled shenanighans
that seem to be part of most ”planning” and “development” decisions wherever
I look (reinforced by tales from my brother, whose legal practice focuses on
representing homeowners in zoning/development disputes). So, I’m going to
repeat the opening sentences from my local schmocal essay, and hope that
citizens will vigilantly monitor their local officials – ever skeptical about the
relationship of local pols and developers.
One very good thing about our “let fifty labs operate” federalist
system is that states get to see what works in other places and
take advantage of the experience. One very strange part of the
system, however, is that states never seem to learn from the mistakes
that happen elsewhere. And, one very weak part of the system is
that the labs are operated by local governments.
Some political theorists and ideologues wax rhapsodic about decisions being made and problems being solved at the level closest to the
people. But, when I think “local government” I tend to think — based mostly
on the seven or eight cities of various sizes I’ve lived in over the past half
century — “un-professional,” “sinecures,” “patronage,” “pay-back,” and
“party hacks.” I do not think “knowledgeable people likely to solve
complicated problems.”
Call me a cynic, but when it comes to economic development, I’m more likely to think
“the fix is in.” Hold on to your wallets and your deeds.
“[I]n the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American
democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed
of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically
restrict, the judiciary’s indispensable role in limiting government.”
We part company, however, when Prof. B. says that the votes of Kennedy
and Souter prove “once again just how essential it is that Bush 43 pick
somebody reliably — and permanently — conservative when there’s an
opening.” (emphasis added) If someone tells me that their political or
judicial philosphy will never change, no matter how much experience shows
that his or her perspective or ideology simply does not work in practice, or
does not serve justice, the Constitution, or the public interest in particular
circumstances, my reaction is “then, you do not have a judicial temperament.”
asking the next Supreme Court nominee to tour Pittsburgh to see the results of decades of
eminent domain aimed at creating “better uses.” (July 5, 2005)
potluck 