Eminent Injustice. Julia Vitullo-Martin glosses over the grotesque misuse of "eminent domain" that developer Bruce RATner hopes to benefit from. The New York City government intends to steal property from one private owner -- hundreds, actually -- and turn it over to another private owner. That is NOT what eminent domain was intended for, but is an utterly improper, if not absolutely illegal, misuse of government power to benefit one private person over another private person (or, in this case, hundreds of other private persons).
+
Eminent domain was intended to permit government to buy, at fair market value, property from a private owner for PUBLIC purposes, whether the private owner wished to sell or not. Perhaps a homeowner would prefer to retain his property than sell it to government, albeit at a fair price or even generous price. He doesn't care that government wants to construct a school, widen a street, or build a highway or light-rail line that needs his property for its right-of-way. He loves his house and wants to stay in it, where it is, no matter who says that his property might better be used for some other purpose.
+
The greater good of the greater number authorizes government to take private property for public use. What it does NOT do is authorize government to seize private property from one private owner, buy it with public money, and then sell it to another private owner that government might prefer own it. That's called "stealing".
+
Picture this. Someone accosts you on the street and demands your wedding ring. He offers you fair market value plus a bonus of 5% in consideration of its personalized engraving and sentimental value and insists "That's more than fair." You refuse, because you treasure your ring and would never willingly part with it. He then pulls a gun and says "Hand it over or I'll kill you". You grudgingly accede, and the gunman pays you fair market value plus 5%. He then immediately turns to his left and sells it to another person standing there, who reimburses the thief dollar-for-dollar (plus 5% 'for his trouble'). Would that be right? I don't think so.
+
If Bruce RATner wants property now owned by other private persons, he can damned well buy it, at a price they are willing to sell for. If they are unwilling to sell, he will have to accept the fact that he is not one whit better than they are, and his wishes have no more validity than theirs. If he can't build around them, he will have to find another site, or abandon his plans because they are not feasible. He is not entitled to have government rob Peter to pay Bruce.
+
Visitors to Rockefeller Center may notice, if they look carefully, that 30 Rock, centerpiece and tallest tower of the complex, is flanked by two little buildings on the Avenue of the Americas side. Why? Because the owners wouldn't sell, that's why. Did the plan for a Rockefeller Center come grinding to a halt? Did the City seize those two buildings and turn them over to Rockefeller Center to be demolished? No. The architects and contractors just built around them, and they stand there to this day. Nobody thinks a thing about it, and, if anything, those two little buildings add character to the Center.
+
Let Bruce Ratner, and every other private developer in the Nation, buy what they can buy and accept that they are not entitled to what they cannot buy - just as you and I are not entitled to what we cannot buy. As we don't demand that government take by force a car that the driver would not sell us, and then sell it to us over the objection of the original owner, Bruce Ratner and every other private developer who cannot or will not pay the owner's asking price for property they would like to own should simply have to do without. As the song advises, "You can't always get what you want."
+
Bruce RATner is aptly named. He bought the New Jersey Nets and intends to move them across the Hudson River despite what many New Jerseyans might regard as the greater good of the greater number. Maybe the State of New Jersey should simply seize the Nets from Ratner by eminent domain and sell the team to some New Jersey enterprise that pledges in writing to keep it here. But that would be a misuse of eminent domain, and of taxpayer dollars, wouldn't it? New Jersey wouldn't do that. New York, however, is another story. (Responsive to "A New Growth War", New York Post, May 23, 2004)
+
P.S. I undergo surgery to my right knee tomorrow, Tuesday, May 25th, and will have to stay in the hospital (UMDNJ) at least one and possibly two nites thereafter. So do not be surprised if there is no entry in this blog for May 25th, 26th, or even 27th. In the immortal words of the present governor of California, "I'll be back." Or, in words of someone I am more favorably disposed to, Douglas MacArthur in reference to the Philippines, "I shall return." As to that, more than incidentally, I think we as a Nation should resolve, as to the Philippines, "We shall return", tho this time as fellow citizens, not colonial overlords.
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 6:33 AM