Back in 2005, I remember being appalled by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. There are a lot of factors to consider, of course, but in my opinion, invoking "eminent domain" should involve either the taking of distressed properties, or the construction of some very worthwhile public infrastructure or project.

Essentially, the local authorities applied eminent domain to take residential properties away from small private owners and transfer them them to another private owner, a large private owner, for private development. The small private owners had in many cases, owned their property for generations, but the locality, New London, preferred that the property be taken and redeveloped according to a plan prepared for Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant.

One owner, Susette Kelo, sued to keep her property, and the case was eventually decided in the Supreme Court. What I didn't know at the time was that Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted to allow the taking of the property. I am well aware that New London, indeed much of New England has been in tough shape, but that the so-called liberal wing of the court would come to such a decision is galling to me.

That Pfizer pulled out of the project once the tax breaks ended is instructive, to say the least. A NY Times blog offers several opinions:

A Turning Point for Eminent Domain?

Paul Bass:

The lesson learned in the City of New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood -- or what was once the Fort Trumbull neighborhood -- is that urban liberals make mistakes, big mistakes when they stand against the little guy through the misuse of eminent domain.

These urban liberals -- the Democrats running New London at the time -- thought they could build a "better" neighborhood by destroying generations of individual investment. And they used government power, the power of eminent domain, to do it. Eminent domain makes sense when used for public safety, but it doesn't make sense when it means giving already powerful interests an advantage in real estate development.

Now the homes are gone and vast acres remain abandoned. Not only is Pfizer not building the new neighborhood it promised, it is closing its research and development headquarters and moving 1,400 jobs out of town.

Dana Berliner:

No one should be surprised by the aftermath of the Kelo case -- neither the fact that absolutely nothing has been built on the land nor the fact that Pfizer is now pulling out of New London altogether.

The evidence at trial showed that nothing would be built on that land. The developer (who has now left the project) did a study showing there was no market for the biotech office buildings the city claimed would replace the homes. But the courts didn't want to look at that evidence. If they had, Susette Kelo would still be in her home and the rest of us would be safe from eminent domain abuse.

Nor is it surprising that Pfizer has now pulled out. The company took advantage of the phenomenal tax break when it was there and is pulling out just before it ends. The deal and the project didn't make any financial sense for a private company, and no one would have agreed to it without a huge subsidy.

Matthew J. Festa:

New London will be "Exhibit A" for the argument that taking private property for redevelopment projects -- especially projects that depend on one big private entity that is free to leave town -- is not only unfair but bad policy as well.

The legal rationale of Kelo remains intact, but perhaps courts will be less easily persuaded by the comprehensiveness of a proposed redevelopment plan when hearing challenges to eminent domain. The Supreme Court was clearly influenced by the master plan in Kelo, but lawyers in future cases will surely point to the fact that New London's plan ultimately failed.

Ilya Somin:

Far from producing the promised "development," the condemnation of private property in New London under Kelo damaged the local economy by destroying homes and businesses and wasting taxpayer money.

This result should not have been surprising. Government planners who undertake "economic development" condemnations have strong incentives to approve takings that benefit well-connected interest groups, even if they end up destroying more development than they create. Usually, as in Kelo, those targeted for condemnation are poor or politically weak.

So with Pfizer leaving, what do we have on site now?

There once was a soccer mom, Palin
Who quit from a job that was failin'
In her moose country brogue
She wrote Going Rogue
With hope that she'll now have smooth sailin'

Todd and Sarah had a new revelation
They were having a non-wedlocked grandson
After Bristol quit Levi
He sought out the pub's eye
Will we not see the end of this Johnston?

Orly Taitz questioned Obama's birth
Til she made it a subject of mirth
Though her speech may be free
The judge ruled that he
Had to show her what court costs were worth

A fairly believable explanation of why we are where we are:

Bailouts for Dummies

The problem is that the US has never had a 'free' market economy. It subsidizes large corporations to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and ignores international legal and 'free' trade rulings that go against American corporations. It uses its economic wealth and power to bully other nations into giving it easy and uncompetitive access to their resources, labour and markets at bargain prices. So the current state in the US is an "unbalanced economy" -- one where a few rich corporations essentially dictate policy to governments. Any government that refuses to play ball is threatened with the withdrawal of reelection funds by these large corporations in favour of other parties and candidates. In the US it takes a huge amount of money to get elected, and dueling with the corporatists is political suicide. It is not surprising, then, that the wealthiest 1% of Americans now control more than half of the nation's total wealth, resources and private property, and that while the top 5% of Americans have achieved staggering real increases in wealth and income over the past 40 years, real net wealth and real income for everyone else have declined.

So far he makes the US sound like Wal-Mart.

The US economy was substantially built on war. Most of the accumulated wealth of the country was made through war and "defense" activities, a large proportion of American innovations stemmed from huge military investments, and military and defense spending still directly or indirectly provides 20-30% of US economic activity (economic production and jobs).

Or War-Mart.

On top of this, our global economy is addicted to growth. Without steady, continuous, unending growth, corporations could not raise capital or borrow money, so they would collapse. The stock market requires sustained double-digit growth in profits to keep it from collapsing -- current share prices have an implicit "price/earnings multiple" that assumes continuous rapid growth in profits, forever, and if you took away that profit growth, shares would be worth substantially nothing. Every stock market 'investment' is a gamble on perpetual growth.

Read the whole thing.

Trends and lessons emerge from review of Fort Collins bike, car crashes

I'll be cycling to work again soon, so here's another earnest discussion of cycling safety. In this small study, four types of collisions predominate:

The most common collision is "The Broadside," at 60.5% of crashes. That's when a motorist goes straight through an intersection even when there's a bike right in front of him.

Broadsides seem to result from traffic violations by both bikers, such as riding on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way, blowing through stop signs, and by drivers, who blow through signals and fail to yield. As a cyclist, I have little fear of broadsides because I don't ride that way, and I no longer expect cars to yield, but I do see people riding that way every day. What scares me are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most common accidents.

The infamous Right Hook -- or what the city calls "Overtaking Turn Accidents at Intersections" -- is the second most common collision at 13% of the total in their count.

Cars are so much faster that it is hard to see this coming. I have been cut off by the Right Hook as a runner, cyclist and moped rider. My feeling is that once a car driver passes a slower entity, his attention transfers to what is ahead. Practicing Lane Control, or riding in the center of a lane, is supposed to avoid this situation, but also tends to aggravate auto drivers.

The third most common collision type is the left cross at 9.3% of collisions. This is when a left turning motorist slams into a cyclist going straight through an intersection. Of the 33 left crosses, 3 involved a cyclist riding on the sidewalk, 2 were going the wrong way, and two failed to stop at a signal or sign. The overwhelming number of these were motorists who just kept going in spite of the presence of a bike in their path.

The Left Cross is a notorious killer of motorcyclists, too. I had my worst motorcycle accident when a car turned left right in front of me on a slick road. I put the bike down, sprained both wrists and essentially gave up motorcycling.

After that, the next collision type is the dreaded "Hit From Behind." The 30 "sideswipes" recorded account for 8.5% of bike collisions. With the exception of a single head on, all fatalities are these types.

"All fatalities" is a small number in a small study, but this collision involves the highest degree of auto driver misbehavior: DUI, erratic driving, etc., and therefore is least preventable by cyclists. Again, the standard advice is Lane Control, but on faster roads, lane control is practically asking for road rage. Hence, in a more suburban situation, I will choose the empty sidewalk rather than go rubber to rubber with SUVs going 50 mph.

I always wear a helmet, but a friend on Facebook sent me this article:

Wearing helmets 'more dangerous'

Cyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be knocked down by passing vehicles, new research from Bath University suggests.

The study found drivers tend to pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than those who are bare-headed.

...

To carry out the research, Dr Walker used a bike fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to find drivers were twice as likely to get close to the bicycle, at an average of 8.5cm, when he wore a helmet.

...

To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist.

While wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14cm more space when passing.

I'll bet he got a lot more funny looks, though.