[URBANTH-L]Supreme Court Affirms Property Seizures (Further Responses)

Angela Jancius acjancius at ysu.edu
Mon Jun 27 16:18:59 EDT 2005

From: Susan Greenbaum <greenbau at chuma1.cas.usf.edu>

I agree with Deb.  Here in Tampa, where they are getting ready to do
this again, the landscape is similarly littered with losing
partnerships; in an aquarium, sports stadium, historic preservation
district turned into a youth arcade, and many others, all of which were
supposed to be magic revenue bullets, but are liabilities instead.  


From: Paul <paulanthropus at cox.net>

I never thought I would agree with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and
William Renquist on anything. But however you cut it, the decision is
tantamount to one private entity trumping another. This is the sort of
decision that favors the corporate elite over the so-called little guy. The
empty fixtures in southern New Jersey that Deb Woodell points out also
demonstrate the failures of a twin bureaucracy--the public and the

I don't know the logic behind Thomas et al.'s dissent--it strikes me as
inconsistent with the neoconservative ideologies they represent--but this
decision threatens us all. An viable neighborhood is to be displaced thanks
to a few fools in New London who not only favor a set of corporate entities
over their own citizens, but offer no guarantee that the private economic
development projects won't wind up a bust such as the ones in southern New

Paul McDowell
Santa Barbara, CA
paulanthropus at cox.net

More information about the URBANTH-L mailing list