Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town

R

RockX

Banned
Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab.


The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

That's 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.

Kelo's silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.

If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527513453636326.html



:lol:

Karma Is A Bitch
 
Yeah this doesn't really prove anything. Why don't conservatives ever rely on numbers? Why always vague anecdotes? Because conservatism has absolutely no intellectual basis.
 
no-BAMA! said:
Yeah this doesn't really prove anything. Why don't conservatives ever rely on numbers? Why always vague anecdotes? Because conservatism has absolutely no intellectual basis.
Click to expand...
Tell me how those numbers work out, Watermark. They were unsuccessful in generating even $1 of taxes (the very reason that they used Immanent Domain to take the property), spent over $78 Million Dollars, took people's homes and got nothing for it.

Boy Howdy! That's a success for liberalism and a good solid argument government takeover! Now, we need to say something about how Conservatives never do math and pretend we're smarter so we can sit in a circle jerk and ignore failure! It's like watching those people trying desperately to learn how to float in a Swami's class bouncing around on their pillows like children.

Do the maths yourself, knucklehead. Demonstrate how this benefited anybody involved.
 
webbway said:
Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab.


The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

That's 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.

Kelo's silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.

If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527513453636326.html
Click to expand...


Jeez. For the first time ever you've actually posted something I agree with.
.
.
.
.

Don't let it happen again. :rant:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Damocles said:
Tell me how those numbers work out, Watermark. They were unsuccessful in generating even $1 of taxes (the very reason that they used Immanent Domain to take the property), spent over $78 Million Dollars, took people's homes and got nothing for it.

Boy Howdy! That's a success for liberalism and a good solid argument government takeover! Now, we need to say something about how Conservatives never do math and pretend we're smarter so we can sit in a circle jerk and ignore failure! It's like watching those people trying desperately to learn how to float in a Swami's class bouncing around on their pillows like children.

Do the maths yourself, knucklehead. Demonstrate how this benefited anybody involved.
Click to expand...

I don't need to. If you aren't willing to back up your claims with figures, the claims are invalid. This is the end of the discussion.
 
This should be turned into a documentary and provided to every city councilman faced with a decision on eminent domain.......where's Michael Moore when he could actually do some good?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
This should be turned into a documentary and provided to every city councilman faced with a decision on eminent domain.......where's Michael Moore when he could actually do some good?......
Click to expand...

Might be worth my time, if someone else hasn't already done it.

Maybe some of you from the FullPolitics days remember just prior to this I was writing some posts critical of ol' Bob Mugabe throwing people living in make-shift huts out on the streets, of course, to tighten the grip of the state sector for providing housing, even though they're undergoing hyperinflation.

And I said 'just wait, something like this is going to happen here and people will say nothing.' After all, it is always easier to criticize the wrongdoing in another country. But I'm glad I was only half right. The states have stepped up largely on this issue to set things right.

But we have to remain vigilant against corporate welfare, and not just the obvious kinds like the bank bailouts and tax subsidies. Backdoor corporate welfare is happening all the time under the guise of economic development.
 
no-BAMA! said:
I don't need to. If you aren't willing to back up your claims with figures, the claims are invalid. This is the end of the discussion.
Click to expand...

translation: Damo completely fucked my entire liberal argument using plain facts and straight math so I'm taking my toys and going home.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that taking workers money and giving it to corporations increases economic competitiveness. Whether or not that's a good thing for society is the real question...
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Might be worth my time, if someone else hasn't already done it.

Maybe some of you from the FullPolitics days remember just prior to this I was writing some posts critical of ol' Bob Mugabe throwing people living in make-shift huts out on the streets, of course, to tighten the grip of the state sector for providing housing, even though they're undergoing hyperinflation.

And I said 'just wait, something like this is going to happen here and people will say nothing.' After all, it is always easier to criticize the wrongdoing in another country. But I'm glad I was only half right. The states have stepped up largely on this issue to set things right.

But we have to remain vigilant against corporate welfare, and not just the obvious kinds like the bank bailouts and tax subsidies. Backdoor corporate welfare is happening all the time under the guise of economic development.
Click to expand...

Corporate subsidies can sometimes be used to a good effect. That's when they're used to bring in new types of growing industries, and slowly phased out over time. Singapore is the model for that kind of state-lead capitalist development.

Unfortunately most of our subsidies go to line the pockets of old protected interests that don't need the money. Like agriculture. I can see the purpose of giving out subsidies so that we have enough food to sustain ourselves without foreign aid (because food is a necessity and in times of need foreign nations usually ignore free trade dogma and just hoard their food), but we just give the money away with little purpose.
 
Gosh, do I hate being right.

I went back to look up the election results in Winston-Salem, since I ran a campaign there 4 years ago. We ran 100% against a plan to subsidize a new assembly plant for Dell, which was passed by the ludicrous Corprate Welfare Democrats in North Carolina.

And here is the end result: http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/10/07/article/dell_to_close_its_winston_salem_plant

One might think tht with all the ribbon cutting done with taxpayer dollars in North Carolina the last eight years that the state would have weathered the recession better than other states.

In fact, North Carolina has been hit worse. You can't develop an economy on a foundation made of quicksand.
 
no-BAMA! said:
I don't need to. If you aren't willing to back up your claims with figures, the claims are invalid. This is the end of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Which claims weren't backed up with figures from the article, other than your own? Seriously. Are you okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top