Who\'s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

Not exactly the surprise of the weekend, the New York Times editorial chimes in with a sympathetic nod to huffing and puffing and blowing your house down.

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.

Note that your property rights are also printed utilizing little quotes in the article.

New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

The good of a few trumped 'for the greater good'. Well, if by 'greater good' we're talking about the New York Times... :roll:

(The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

Share this

New London’s development

New London’s development plan (doomed attempt at economic growth through dictatorship) may hurt a few small property owners (blight), who will, in any case, be fully compensated (paid an amount we think is "full"). But many more residents are likely to benefit (suffer) if the city can shore up its tax base (scare away rich bastards with higher tax rates) and attract badly needed jobs (paid for by dispersed, unseesn [in the Bastiatian sense] job losses caused by higher tax rates).

Here are some suggestions

Here are some suggestions for where the little quote marks ought to be...

The "Supreme Court’s" ruling yesterday that the "economically troubled" city of New London, Conn., can use its "power of eminent domain" to "spur development" was a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the "public interest". It also is a setback to the property rights movement, which is trying to block "government" from imposing "reasonable" zoning and environmental regulations.

Take that, you despicable apologists for robbery!