Submitted by Jeff Miller, Jan 12, 2007 11:26

Your recital of the facts is so slanted as to essentially constitute a lie. Read the District Court opinion on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction at 304 F.Supp.2d 548.

By plaintiffs' own admission, CVS had no interest whatsoever in their property until the City and developer created (and allocated enormous resources to) the redevelopment project. The redevelopment plan which created the right to acquire the property was adopted in 1999. The whole process was public, including the selection of the developer. At the time the property owners in the area had the right to object both to the plan and the proposed deal with the developer (if they felt the deal was too slanted in favor of the developer). The plaintiffs were clearly aware of the whole process in 1999 and had communications with the City at the time. They raised no objection.

The City had the right to take the property as of 1999. It was preferable to take the property (a) so that the City would have some security that the development would take place and (b) because the CVS plan proposed by the plaintiffs would have resulted in underutilization of adjacent property. The negotiations between the plaintiffs and developer were not some last minute stick-up job but went on for several months, with the direct encouragement of the City. They were economic negotiations pure and simple and were entirely fair in the context of the prior designation of the property for acquisition and the vast allocation of money by the City and developer to the redevelopment (without which, again, CVS never would have been interested). The plaintiffs were unhappy with the negotiations so they are trying to create a constitutional issue.

Please grow up and recognize that eminent domain is a complex issue. The world-view of private landowners as the heros riding white horses and fighting the overwhelming might of the dark and devious government in the pocket of developers is facile. It may be fine if you have the luxury of jetting off to the Hamptons. But not if you live in a core urban area trying to pull itself up by the bootstraps and needing tax revenue to fund silly stuff like, say, schools, police, and other basic services.

I have no objection to a frank legislative discussion of eminent domain. But to suggest that the Supreme Court should (a) twist itself into a pretzel to avoid a clear statute of limitations bar and then (b) legislate from the bench a one-size-fits-all rule on eminent domain is just silly. I'm guessing you didn't like it when they did that in Roe v. Wade.

You in the press have enormous power in this day and age, and with power comes responsibility. No matter your feelings on this case or eminent domain, you at least had the responsibility to present the facts fairly in your editorial.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.