<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> Supreme Court Rejects Arena Critics’ Appeal June 23, 2008, 10:51 am In the latest and the most devastating defeat for critics of the Nets’ new arena, the US Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant a hearing on their appeal of lower court rulings favoring Bruce Ratner. The Court rejected the appeal without comment. Critics had hoped the Court would revisit its big eminent domain decision from 2005. The decision is likely to clear the way for ground breaking later this year. Court won't review NBA Nets arena project - - AP High Court won't hear appeal on Atlantic Yards - Sewell Chan - New York Times</div> So you can all breathe easy, or have another reason to hate on this team
There was no reason for the Supreme Court to hear this case. Like it or not, <u>Kelo </u>is controlling, and the present facts don't indicate any useful grounds on which to rule.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 23 2008, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The court is wrong. Defend freedom, not corporate welfare.</div> Lol
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Jun 24 2008, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 23 2008, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The court is wrong. Defend freedom, not corporate welfare.</div> Lol </div> You disagree?
It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div> I know, Kelo is extremely wrong.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide. Good decision, IMO.</div> How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div> I know, Kelo is extremely wrong. </div> I agree on jurisprudential grounds that Kelo was completely wrong - but the only ways it'll get overturned are either a) the Court is readjusted considerably or b) a case arises wherein the facts are near-perfect to support overturning <u>Kelo</u>.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div> I know, Kelo is extremely wrong. </div> Kelo is extremely right under the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I have fully enjoyed the saga of the critics, who seem to think poorly constructed legal arguments and blogging can substitute for organizing political support, or failing that, attempting a compromise. They would make good fascists.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div> I know, Kelo is extremely wrong. </div> Kelo is extremely right under the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I have fully enjoyed the saga of the critics, who seem to think poorly constructed legal arguments and blogging can substitute for organizing political support, or failing that, attempting a compromise. They would make good fascists. </div> <u>Kelo </u>is contrary to the Constitution, regardless of the fact that it is precedential law. The further complication in this case is that I'm not all that sure that the critics would win this case even without <u>Kelo</u>.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 08:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div> I know, Kelo is extremely wrong. </div> Kelo is extremely right under the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I have fully enjoyed the saga of the critics, who seem to think poorly constructed legal arguments and blogging can substitute for organizing political support, or failing that, attempting a compromise. They would make good fascists. </div> And the US Supreme Court is wrong. They are not infallible. Simply ruling on a case does not make it correct. Forcing property owners to sell their land at below market values so that a corporation gets a sweeter deal is wrong. Always. If Ratner wants to develop the land, he is free to do so. But he should have to buy out every landowner at market values and not a penny less. I support property rights. How does that make me fascist? You've gotta be kidding me with this one. Do you always just carelessly throw out ill-informed labels like this?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide. Good decision, IMO.</div> How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation. </div> SO naive. EVERY eminent domain taking benefits private parties, either directly or indirectly. Condemn land for a highway and adjoining properties owners (sometime with political connections) get a benefit. Grant an easement for a sewer or water line and those whose properties are served get the benefit of amenities and higher property values. In a town where we have a summer place the county decided to extend the water and sewer lines to just beyond where one of the political party bosses built a new house. At least in the case of Ratner, no one is attempting to mask the beneficiary. It's called economic development. It works. If Ratner doesn't build, the result will be an eyesore that NO builder is going to want to take a risk on. Ratner will put the Nets up for sale to the highest bidder in an attempt to recoup his losses and there is NO way to be certain that bidder will be someone from the New York-New Jersey area. In fact, the opposite is true. I find these arguments silly and absent the one argument that matters to the city and state: New York is in competition not with New Jersey, but with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai and even Moscow. There is NO better location outside Manhattan for high density development, with its proximity to the financial district (8 minutes by subway) and mass transit access (10 subway lines, the LIRR and possible JFK high speed line).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide. Good decision, IMO.</div> How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation. </div> SO naive. EVERY eminent domain taking benefits private parties, either directly or indirectly. Condemn land for a highway and adjoining properties owners (sometime with political connections) get a benefit. Grant an easement for a sewer or water line and those whose properties are served get the benefit of amenities and higher property values. In a town where we have a summer place the county decided to extend the water and sewer lines to just beyond where one of the political party bosses built a new house. At least in the case of Ratner, no one is attempting to mask the beneficiary. It's called economic development. It works. If Ratner doesn't build, the result will be an eyesore that NO builder is going to want to take a risk on. Ratner will put the Nets up for sale to the highest bidder in an attempt to recoup his losses and there is NO way to be certain that bidder will be someone from the New York-New Jersey area. In fact, the opposite is true. I find these arguments silly and absent the one argument that matters to the city and state: New York is in competition not with New Jersey, but with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai and even Moscow. There is NO better location outside Manhattan for high density development, with its proximity to the financial district (8 minutes by subway) and mass transit access (10 subway lines, the LIRR and possible JFK high speed line). </div> The next thing you know, you'll be trying to convince us that a JD degree and a still-wet bar membership card doesn't make a 25-year-old into a constitutional law expert. We all know that isn't the case. Silly you.
Incidentally, has anyone else read Judge Posner's take on Kelo? He's the brain to pick if one wants analysis separate from jurisprudential leanings.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide. Good decision, IMO.</div> How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation. </div> SO naive. EVERY eminent domain taking benefits private parties, either directly or indirectly. Condemn land for a highway and adjoining properties owners (sometime with political connections) get a benefit. Grant an easement for a sewer or water line and those whose properties are served get the benefit of amenities and higher property values. In a town where we have a summer place the county decided to extend the water and sewer lines to just beyond where one of the political party bosses built a new house. At least in the case of Ratner, no one is attempting to mask the beneficiary. It's called economic development. It works. If Ratner doesn't build, the result will be an eyesore that NO builder is going to want to take a risk on. Ratner will put the Nets up for sale to the highest bidder in an attempt to recoup his losses and there is NO way to be certain that bidder will be someone from the New York-New Jersey area. In fact, the opposite is true. I find these arguments silly and absent the one argument that matters to the city and state: New York is in competition not with New Jersey, but with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai and even Moscow. There is NO better location outside Manhattan for high density development, with its proximity to the financial district (8 minutes by subway) and mass transit access (10 subway lines, the LIRR and possible JFK high speed line). </div> Economic development is cool. And it works sometimes. Not always - hence why projects carry risk. I'm all for things being developed, but there's no justification for circumventing the market and having the state abuse its power for "the greater good." The landowners have the right to sell their land at market values, not lower. If Ratner wants the land, he should pay for it at market values. Anything less is corporate welfare.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Are you saying John Yoo was wrong?</div> I don't know what John Yoo said about this, and I don't really care. Of course, I know hundreds of current and former government attorneys--many in very senior positions in this administration--and so I'm naturally skeptical about their positions when I hear them. Everyone has an agenda. Never, ever forget that. Be cynical about everything, and always try to ask yourself what someone's angle is.
