# Awesome decision, Supreme Court! With an additional "fuck you" to New London and Pfizer. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 12, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341 "2009-11-12T18:14:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/21 "2009-11-12T22:28:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > No they weren’t. > > _Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit_ was decided in the Supreme Court of Michigan. It never went to the United States Supreme Court. > > Furthermore, in 2004, a year before _Kelo v. New London_, the Michigan Supreme Court effectively overturned _Poletown v. Detroit_ in its _County of Wayne v. Hathcock_ decision. In fact, in his _Kelo_ dissent, Justic Stevens explicitly referred to _Wayne v. Hathcock_ in support of his argument against the majority. I think it can still be said, though, that the US Supreme Court was following it’s own precedent. In 1984 the Supreme Court handed down a decision in [Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff) that reached the same result as Kelo. In the Midkiff case, however, it was much easier to say “well, who cares about the constitutionality of it, at least the result was for the best”. That’s a case of, what one of my professors used to call, “bad facts resulting in bad law” – i.e., in 1984 the justices bent over backward trying to reach a “good” result, but in the process paved the way for the Kelo decision. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/22 "2009-11-12T22:55:30Z")
> [@Carnacki](#): > > I think it can still be said, though, that the US Supreme Court was following it’s own precedent. > > In 1984 the Supreme Court handed down a decision in [Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff) that reached the same result as Kelo. In the Midkiff case, however, it was much easier to say “well, who cares about the constitutionality of it, at least the result was for the best”. That’s a case of, what one of my professors used to call, “bad facts resulting in bad law” – i.e., in 1984 the justices bent over backward trying to reach a “good” result, but in the process paved the way for the Kelo decision. Sure. My point about precedent related specifically to the _Poletown v. Detroit_ decision in Michigan. While _Kelo_ did follow the precedent set my _Midkiff_, and indeed referred to it on multiple occasions, my non-con-lawyer analysis disagrees with some of their reasoning. For example, in _Kelo_ the decision states that “the City’s development plan was not adopted ‘to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,’” and argues that if it were, it would fail the test of proper public use, following _Midkiff_, which argued that a “purely private taking” would be unnaceptable under the public use doctrine. Admittedly, there is room for subjective disagreement and conflicting analysis here, but i think that the case in Connecticut was far more obviously one in which any public benefit was completely incidental to the main exercise of eminent domain than was the case in Hawai’i. I understand that others might not arrive at the same conclusion, but it seemed to me from the beginning that the New London case was a blatant use of the “public use” excuse to cover for a sweetheart deal between the council and Pfizer. The very “development plan” that the courts found so compelling in the _Kelo_ case was put together, in large measure, by Pfizer itself. The two cases deal with the same general issue, but i think the differences are sufficient to draw important distinctions between them in terms of what constitutes appropriate use of eminent domain. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/23 "2009-11-12T23:16:49Z")
The key difference is also that the land seized in Midkiff was not being given over to commercial use- and, moreover, that the landowners in Midkiff were in some senses operating as a cartel. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/24 "2009-11-12T23:21:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The key difference is also that the land seized in Midkiff was not being given over to commercial use- and, moreover, that the landowners in Midkiff were in some senses operating as a cartel. Absolutely. There is a far more compelling public interest in finding large segments of the population somewhere affordable to live, than there is in handing over land to a multi-billion-dollar private corporation (along with massive tax breaks) in the hope that they abide by their (non-binding) promise to hang around and bring economic prosperity. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/25 "2009-11-12T23:44:24Z")
Perhaps one of our lawyers can weigh in here: are there different levels of eminent domain scrutiny? To me, it seems natural that seizure of a homestead under eminent domain should require a more compelling or more broadly based justification than seizure of commercial or undeveloped land, but is that the case? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/26 "2009-11-12T23:51:52Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > So the city got screwed, the citizens lost their homes and Pfizer got a whole bunch of bad publicity. Nothing new for Pfizer. Maybe as a parting gift to the citizens of New London, Pfizer can give everyone a 6-month supply of Zoloft and Celebrex.\* \*Viagra would be seen as in bad taste. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/27 "2009-11-13T00:21:58Z")
I can say little more than I support the OP. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/28 "2009-11-13T01:05:07Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Furthermore, in 2004, a year before _Kelo v. New London_, the Michigan Supreme Court effectively overturned _Poletown v. Detroit_ in its _County of Wayne v. Hathcock_ decision. In fact, in his _Kelo_ dissent, Justic Stevens explicitly referred to _Wayne v. Hathcock_ in support of his argument against the majority. Stevens was not only in the majority, he wrote the majority opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/29 "2009-11-13T02:34:42Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Yes, but Pfizer was promised a pretty-pretty building in a nice part of town (geographically). That’s where the people lived. > > In order for that to work, they had to take the homes. Like I said, Kelo sucks, but the OP and his clipped quote indicate that he is enjoying the turnabout happening to New London with Pfizer skipping town once the tax breaks wear off. > > I’m just taking a more global approach to this - cities are sometimes forced into a rock and a hard place and typically the small citizen will get squeezed. sucks for the citizen, but it also sucks that the city had to do this. Like anything else, cities die. It sucks, but it will happen eventually, and there’s only so much that can be done before it gives up the ghost or is resurrected into an entirely new town. And I don’t think that people should have their rights trampled over in a last-ditch efforts to keep them on life support. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/30 "2009-11-13T02:45:20Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Nothing new for Pfizer. > > Maybe as a parting gift to the citizens of New London, Pfizer can give everyone a 6-month supply of Zoloft and Celebrex.\* > \*Viagra would be seen as in bad taste. You don’t need Viagra when you’re on the receiving end. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/31 "2009-11-13T03:48:18Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > Stevens was not only in the majority, he wrote the majority opinion. Sorry, my bad. Stevens cited Hathcock, noting that some states impose stricter rules than the “federal baseline” in determining the appropriate definition of “public use.” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/32 "2009-11-13T05:20:59Z")
Holy fucking shit, irony hurts. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/33 "2009-11-13T05:52:15Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Like anything else, cities die. It sucks, but it will happen eventually, and there’s only so much that can be done before it gives up the ghost or is resurrected into an entirely new town. And I don’t think that people should have their rights trampled over in a last-ditch efforts to keep them on life support. I;m not exactly disagreeing with your principle here, but I thinkpeople are missing the point. Whatever New Lodon’s problems, the city stupidly tore up a vibrant, strong neighborhood to hand over to someone else. That’s idiocy, because no matter how things changed, it could not _improve_ by definition. You can never improve your city by shoving happy fmilies off and their land and away from it. ven if you make the city wealthier, it will be a worse place to live. And probably, the people in charge of New London knew that. They just wanted to tax income they dreamed would come down the line. Now it won’t, of course, and it didn’t take a genius to see that this was coming. Modern business is extremely hyperactive; there will always be some new reason to move something, and facilities set to lose big tax incentives are the easy choices. Second, too many people here are whining about Big Corporations, and are thus missing the entire goddamn point. Are you stupid enough to think the problem is that Pfizer makes shitloads of cash? What the fuck? Cities do this kind of thing with local developers all the time, and usually they’re no more kind or honest about it than Pfizer is/was in new London. Exactly the same thing happens, so don’t be a dumbass: the identity of the enriched, well-connected developer doesn’t really fucking matter, and it ain’t usually some Big Corporation who’s at fault anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/34 "2009-11-13T17:27:34Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Stevens cited Hathcock, noting that some states impose stricter rules than the “federal baseline” in determining the appropriate definition of “public use.” This is what I recall of the case. At the time, as much as I think the city’s use of eminent domain was wrong, I thought (and still think) the case was decided correctly. That is, eminent domain is constitutional; any (and every) area should pass laws defining its extent. IMHO, the one good thing that came out of this case was that many jurisdictions subsequently passed laws doing exactly that. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/35 "2009-11-13T17:31:51Z")
I still don’t understand why the court relied on Midkiff, which again, was as much about antitrust law as eminent domain, rather than Berman v. Parker. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/36 "2009-11-13T17:40:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I still don’t understand why the court relied on Midkiff, which again, was as much about antitrust law as eminent domain, rather than Berman v. Parker. I’m no Constitutional lawyer, but i’m not sure it’s true to say that the court relied on _Midkiff_ rather than _Berman_. Like most Supreme Court decisions, the ruling relied on a whole bunch of cases. _Berman_ is referred to multiple times in the majority opinion. The example from _Midkiff_ that i gave, above, is just one of a whole bunch of areas in which the court’s decision made reference to prior cases; it was not the only issue on which the case turned. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/37 "2009-11-13T18:25:37Z")
Land grab… Land grab… “See: snatch.” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/38 "2009-11-13T18:29:18Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Land grab… Land grab… “See: snatch.” 😃 Awesome reference. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/39 "2009-11-13T20:19:27Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Land grab… Land grab… “See: snatch.” I agree with **mhendo**. Congratulations, **Shot From Guns**! You’ve won the thread! ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341/40 "2009-11-13T21:09:08Z")
Oh boy, I hope that involves cookies. I could really use a cookie. For my own nefarious purposes, and they’re none of your damn business. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-decision-supreme-court-with-an-additional-fuck-you-to-new-london-and-pfizer/517341.md?page=3)