Less-than-eminent domain. Yesterday's Supreme Court eminent-domain decision (Kelo v. City of New London) gets a butter-wouldn't-melt-in-their-mouths editorial today from the Times, which declares it "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest." Welcome to whom is, of course, the rub. It's difficult not to feel for the dispossesed plaintiffs in the case (in the language of the Court):

Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. Her husband Charles (also a petitioner) has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago. ... There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.

Unless, of course, you're a Times editorialist, and have the ability to wave them all away rhetorically as "a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated." AKA people of no importance.

The public interest the Times sees vindicated in Kelo may not, however, be quite as public as the editorial lets on. A once-sentence disclaimer in the piece mentions that "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." Perhaps unsurprisingly, there hangs a story, one the Times would rather not tell in full, about just how corrupting the power of eminent domain can be in those fortunate enough to wield it on their own behalf:

The short version is this (the Village Voice has the long version here): a couple of years back, the NY Times decided it wanted to build a big shiny new headquarters.  And it wanted to built it on Eighth Avenue near the Port Authority terminal in Manhattan.  Unfortunately, other people owned some of the land - Scot Cohen, for example, who owned B&J Fabrics, a family business that had been there for almost 50 years.  To get the land owned by Cohen and others, the Times resorted to what is now apparently the Supreme Court approved American way: it used its political influence, and that of its developer, to work a deal with the city and state whereby New York's economic development agency would take the land and reconvey it to the developer on extremely favorable financial terms. ...

Here's the hilarious part: at the time, a communications professor noted that the Times's involvement might "undermine the Times' ability to criticize similar arrangements between government and business."  The Times, of course, insisted that its journalistic and editorial operations were pristine and could not possibly be influenced by what its business folks were up to: "This real estate transaction does not compromise the independence or credibility of the Times editorial voice or the integrity of the Times reporting in any way. Our business and news functions operate separately." 

The very picture of probity, our Times editorial page. [Thanks to The Cunctator for pointing me to Blue Mass. Group for the item.]

posted by michael  1:34:53 PM  
tell me about it []  trackback []