Here’s what we’ve been reading today:
- A Turning Point for Eminent Domain? – The NY Times “Room for Debate” forum posts the thoughts of six property law experts on the meaning of Pfizer’s decision to close its research headquarters in New London, Connecticut. New London, of course, was the epicenter of the public use case that became Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Many of the comments are also worth perusing.
- The Times covers the news side of the above in Pfizer to Leave City That Won Land-Use Case. Complete with photos of Ms. Kelo’s relocated Little Pink House.
- At Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Luke Wake searches for The Moral of the Kelo Story.
- In The Empire State and Eminent Domain, the Wall Street Journal opines that “[Dan] Goldstein should win. The state constitution supports him. If he loses,so will the owners of private property everywhere in the Empire State.” They’re talking of course about the latest Atlantic Yards case from Brooklyn, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp. The New York Court of Appeals is present considering Mr. Goldstein’s claims of eminent domain abuse in an economic development taking under the New York Constitution. We live-blogged the oral arguments, which are archived here.
- Also from the WSJ is Our “Constitutional Moment” – a report about newspaperman Seth Lipsky and his thoughts about the role of the Constitution. He notes, “‘It’s [the Kelo decision] just unbelievable, that case,’ Mr. Lipsky says—and all the more soin light of the latest development, or rather the lack of development.On Monday, Pfizer Inc., which was to have built offices on thenow-barren site, announced that it was leaving New London altogether aspart of a consolidation move.”