There is a Drudge-aballoo currently afoot about Los Angeles' shiny new $578 million high school?the most expensive in our nation's history, at least in nominal terms?on the site where Robert Kennedy was assassinated (and, in better times, Mamie Van Doren was crowned Miss L.A. Press Club). Though critics are portraying it as a budget-crisis-hypocrisy story, that's not entirely accurate, since this and more than $20 billion (yes, with a "b") worth of other L.A. Unified School District projects were earmarked through ballot-box bond measures.

But I'd like to suggest that the story here is even worse than the fact that "construction costs at LA Unified are the second-highest in the nation," even while the system continues to produce craptacular education results. All of these things are terrible, perhaps even criminal, but here's something as infuriating as it is almost totally undercovered in the media: The LAUSD, during this the biggest public works project west of The Big Dig, has bulldozed literally thousands of homes and businesses that stood in its way. They have been razing entire neighborhoods in order to educate them, even as enrollment numbers in the public school system have been falling through the floor.

For those willing to wade into some dodgy html code, I have written about thisextensively in the past.

As Jesse Walker noted earlier this month, officials in Montgomery, Alabama have been seizing and demolishing private property without providing just compensation to the owners as required by the Constitution, something the libertarian historian David Beito has rightly denounced as ?eminent domain through the back door.? Here are a few more of the infuriating details, courtesy of the local Fox affiliate:

The above is from a Fox affiliate. Here's snippets from a Liveshot blog:

In 1955, Rosa Parks boarded a bus and forever changed the course of history. Her very public struggle for equality began at a bus stop outside Columbia Court apartments in Montgomery, Alabama.

"It is a very sad situation, it is quite ironic, that this is the place, this is the city where the civil rights movement began in 1955, a very assertive civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King. Yet you have the civil rights of minorities being violated here in a new kind of way, on, I think, a massive scale," said David Beito, chair of the Alabama advisory board to the US Commission on Civil Rights.

Residents -- mostly African-American -- accuse the city of Montgomery of taking their property without just compensation. Using the city's blight ordinance, Montgomery is condemning properties, demolishing them, and even billing the property owners for the demolition costs.

?We have good evidence that these homes are not in fact blighted, that is the pretext that they are blighted and that is why they are being demolished,? Beito said. ?Property owners are losing their land and I think that there is good reason to believe it often ends up in the hands of wealthy developers. It's eminent domain on steroids."...

The Alabama Advisory Board found in favor of the property owners, recommending that the full U.S. Civil Rights Commission investigate any violations by the city. No one from the city appeared before the board.

Beito says there is evidence the city of Montgomery is targeting black homeowners for the benefit of private developers.

Read more.

Beito, a University of Alabama historian, has written for Reason and we've covered this specific case. Links here.

Was it really just four months ago that I could write, "You don't see a lot of people trying to rally the troops by invoking racial quotas these days"? Now you hear race talk everywhere, on the right as well as the left, most of it aimed more at scoring partisan points than illuminating anything. So I'm glad to note some genuinely valuable work coming out of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights down in Alabama, where the libertarian historian David Beito has been serving as chair of the commision's state advisory committee.

The focus there is on what Beito calls "eminent domain through the back door," which has fallen especially heavily on low-income blacks. "Under this system," Beito writes, "Montgomery has demolished homes without the normal due process of conventional eminent domain--and often gives little notice. The city alleges that these homes are 'blighted' but...at least some are in excellent repair." Rather than providing the just compensation required under the Fifth Amendment, the city "bills the owner for the cost of demolition and he or she is left with an essentially worthless property."

Beito's full post is here, and a Fox story on the subject is here. From the latter:

Jimmy McCall and his attorney Norman Hurst were among more than 100 witnesses and property owners who testified before the same hearing. McCall says he was building a 5000 sq. ft. home out of salvaged and recycled wood. His property sits along a busy thoroughfare. McCall says many have asked him to sell his land but he is always refused....

McCall says he took the city to court to prevent demolition and won in both state and federal courts. McCall also got an injunction forcing the city off his property. Using the blight ordinance, McCall's property was eventually demolished and he was sent the bill.

"I never thought a municipality or any other government agents would go against a court order," McCall said. "I never thought they were that bold and arrogant and that they, you know, could just say away with you -- we're gonna do what we want to do and they did it. You know they actually came out and did it."

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger weighed-in on the newspaper industry crisis in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Surprise, suprise?Bollinger trots out the college president model for fixing everything: Give 'em some government funding.

The prospect of newspapers becoming indebted to government, the very institution in greatest need of journalistic oversight, is troublesome, to say the least. Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch has written extensively against the idea of a journalism bailout, and responded to Bollinger's op-ed earlier today. I'll defer to those arguments against a bailout, as Bollinger's op-ed proceeds to make a glaringly false analogy deserving of its own response:

There are examples of other institutions in the U.S. where state support does not translate into official control. The most compelling are our public universities and our federal programs for dispensing billions of dollars annually for research. Those of us in public and private research universities care every bit as much about academic freedom as journalists care about a free press.

Yet?through a carefully designed system with peer review of grant-making, a strong culture of independence, and the protections afforded by the First Amendment?there have been strikingly few instances of government abuse.

That has to be a misprint?surely where Bollinger wrote "few" he actually meant "constant." The statement that few instances of government abuse occur in higher education is so absurdly false that only an Ivy League president could possibly believe it. Said abuses occur daily. They take the form of public university professors being fired, in spite of the First Amendment, for expressing their opinions, which happened at the University of Illinois just recently, and at countless other colleges, both public and private. They take the form of legacy admissions scandals, where college applicants who are relatives of government officials and other noteworthy people are given unmerited consideration (the most recent occurence of this was also at the University of Illinois). Go to The Chronicle of Higher Educationhere and browse the headlines: every other article highlights the tangled web of private/public/government intrigue and abuse in the nation's colleges without even tryingto do so.

Bollinger, for his part, is no stranger to government abuse in higher education. As Columbia University's president, Bollinger conspired with New York's pseudo-public Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to use eminent domain to confiscate private property in a West Harlem neighborhood. Reason Associate Editor Damon W. Root wrote that there was "convincing and damning evidence of widespread collusion between the ESDC and Columbia University to violate both the letter and spirit of the law, as well as to create the very conditions that ESDC officials then used to justify their intervention on Columbia's behalf."

When it comes to universities, public vs. private is a tricky distinction. Private universities receive government funding. Public university presidents draw salaries from sitting on the boards of both private and public companies (Bollinger is a member of the boards of both the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the company that owns The Washington Post). But no reasonable person would conclude that this situation is relatively free of government abuse.

In his statement announcing the selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, President Barack Obama praised Stevens for his ?mastery of the letter of the law? and his ?keen understanding of its impact on people?s lives.? Elena Kagan, Obama assured the country, will carry on Stevens? legacy.

Let?s hope not. In addition to his spotty record on free speech and misguided dissent in the landmark gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Stevens? approach to economic liberty was marked by a callous disregard for the law?s ?impact on people?s lives.? If the Senate Judiciary Committee is serious about determining Kagan?s fitness to hold Stevens? old seat, the senators should start by asking her about her predecessor?s repeated hostility to the judicial protection of economic rights. Here are two places to begin.

First, there?s Stevens? majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where he upheld New London, Connecticut?s controversial use of eminent domain to seize property from one private party and hand it over to another in order to widen the tax base. As Justice Sandra Day O?Connor observed presciently in her dissent, ?all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded?i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public.? And let?s not forget why the government targeted that particular neighborhood for condemnation: The Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation built a new research and development center on the adjacent land and New London wanted to build a fancy hotel, apartment buildings, and office towers to complement the corporate facility. Perhaps Kagan will explain to the Judiciary Committee whether she agrees with Stevens? judgment.

Then there?s Stevens? majority opinion in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002). At issue was a series of rolling moratoriums placed on new construction in Nevada?s Lake Tahoe Basin. Those restrictions stripped property owners of all economically viable use of their land without providing compensation?a violation of the Fifth Amendment?s Takings Clause, which commands, ?private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.?

According to Stevens, however, this nullification of property rights did not require compensation since ?the property will recover value as soon as the prohibition is lifted.? Yet as the legal scholars Robert Levy and William Mellor observed, ?Tahoe-Sierra gives legislatures virtually free rein to deprive property of its entire value for an unlimited amount of time without compensation, provided they style each successive deprivation as ?temporary? in nature.? Surely someone on the Senate Judiciary Committee would like to know Kagan?s views on that?

These are not just academic questions. Only yesterday, New York?s highest court upheld the state?s controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University?a case that featured overwhelming evidence of state officials colluding with the university in order to create the blighted conditions that would allow an eminent domain taking to proceed. Earlier in the week, meanwhile, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a Takings Clause case that centered on the constitutionality of a California rent control ordinance. Justice Stevens may not have noticed it during his long tenure, but cases such as these have a huge ?impact on people?s lives.?

So what should happen at Kagan?s hearings next week? In 1995, Kagan herself criticized the judicial confirmation process as a ?hollow charade? and ?ritual dance.? Senators should ask tough questions about specific issues and nominees should provide substantive answers, Kagan argued, and those questions would naturally focus on ?the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add (or augment), and the direction in which she would move the court.?

We know perfectly well what Justice Stevens thought about the Court?s duty to protect property rights and economic liberty. It?s time for the Judiciary Committee to ask, and for Kagan to answer, whether she will follow in his footsteps.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

That?s Institute for Justice attorney Robert McNamara commenting on yesterday?s terrible decision in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, where New York?s highest court upheld the state?s use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University. He?s exactly right. Not only did the Court of Appeals rubber stamp the state?s bogus blight findings, it completely ignored the Supreme Court?s instructions in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Now, there are certainly many things wrong with Kelo, but one thing the Court made perfectly clear is that, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy?s concurrence, "transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use Clause." Remember that the planners and public officials in New London determined the purpose and scope of the development project before settling on the private developer who would reap the profits. That way the prime beneficiary of the government's power isn't also shaping the manner in which the government wields that power. In Kaur, however, the Empire State Development Corporation and Columbia University worked hand-in-glove from the very start. Indeed, the whole purpose of New York?s land grab isn?t to develop West Harlem in the best way possible, it?s to allow Columbia University to expand. That?s exactly the sort of favoritism and corruption that Justice Kennedy forbids in Kelo.

So not only did New York?s highest court abdicate its core responsibility to review government actions that infringe on individual rights, it also disobeyed the Supreme Court. Let?s hope Justice Kennedy and his colleagues take notice and eventually rectify this gross miscarriage of justice.

New York?s Court of Appeals?the state?s highest court?issued its decision today in the Columbia University eminent domain case, upholding the state?s controversial land grab on behalf of the elite private university. Exactly as it did in last year?s disastrous Atlantic Yards ruling, the Court of Appeals shirked its judicial responsibility and ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation?s flawed and pretextual blight findings ?were rationally based and entitled to deference.? So much for an independent judiciary that stands up for constitutional rights.

I?ll have more to say about this abysmal decision later. For now, you can read it for yourself right here.

In 1998 the pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced plans to build a giant new research and development center in New London, Connecticut. As part of the deal, city officials agreed to clear out neighboring property owners via eminent domain, giving a private developer space to build a fancy new hotel, apartment buildings, and office towers to complement the corporate facility. Five years ago today, in Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this seizure of private property because it was part of a ?comprehensive redevelopment plan? that would provide ?appreciable benefits to the community.?

Half a decade has now passed and we know exactly how well Kelo worked out. The project that was used to entice Pfizer was never built, and last year the company announced that it was closing down its facility and pulling out of New London entirely. The only upshot of this atrocious decision is the nationwide backlash it sparked against eminent domain abuse, including several successful legal challenges and the passage of eminent domain reform in 43 states.

To mark the occasion of Kelo?s fifth anniversary, here's a sampling of Reason's voluminous coverage of the decision and its aftermath:

Never Mind the Kelo, Here?s Scott Bullock. The attorney who argued the landmark eminent domain case surveys the blight. Interview by Tim Cavanaugh.

Why the New York Times ?s Eminent Domain. Elite newspapers and liberal activists embrace the Kelo decision at their long-term peril. By Matt Welch.

The Limits of Anti-Kelo Legislation. Reformers are trying to outlaw eminent domain abuse. But will the laws they?re passing be effective? By Ilya Somin.

Post-Kelo America: An Optimist's View. Reforms are making progress. By Bert Gall.

Litigating for Liberty. The Institute for Justice?s Chip Mellor on campaign finance reform, eminent domain abuse, and licensing laws gone wild. Interview by Nick Gillespie.

Not for Sale. The little pink house that sparked an eminent domain revolution. By Scott Bullock.

The Pro-Corporate Legacy of Justice John Paul Stevens. By Damon Root.

Big Blighters. How developers use ?blight? as a pretext to get the land they covet. By Jacob Sullum.

And in the video below, legal experts from the Institute for Justice look at Kelo five years later:

Keeping with our theme today of corporate welfare boondoggles, the Internets Celebrities, a sort of comedic duo of chubby New Yorkers who make Web documentaries, have a pretty good new one up about stadium welfare and eminent domain abuse in New York. Check it out:

Thanks to Hit&Run commenter Resident Smartass for the tip.

Related Reason.tv content: "Taks Us Out of the Ball Game":

And "Billionaires vs. Brooklyn's Best Bar":

According to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, ?private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.? The classic example of this is eminent domain, where the government seizes property, compensates the owner with taxpayer dollars, and puts the property to an alleged public use. But what happens when government regulations violate property rights? Do regulatory takings require just compensation as well?

It depends. In Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon (1922), the Supreme Court held that ?while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.? But how far is too far?

That?s the question the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will confront on June 22 when it rehears the controversial case of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta. At issue is a Goleta, California, rent control ordinance enacted ?to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rents.? According to a 2009 decision written by Judge Jay Bybee for a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, the Goleta ordinance amounts to little more than a government ?wealth transfer? from the owners of mobile home parks to their rental tenants, and thus ?looks much more like a classic taking than a mere regulatory burden.? Under Bybee?s ruling?which the full 9th Circuit will reconsider?the city must either pay just compensation to the owners or scrap the law entirely.

For property rights activists, Guggenheim came as a welcome and somewhat surprising victory in the long war against California?s noxious regulatory regime. Yet there?s good reason to believe this victory will prove short-lived. No less an authority than University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, author of the influential 1985 book Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, argues that Bybee?s decision is riddled with ?multiple technical deficiencies? and that Bybee tried to ?bite off more than he could chew.?

The trouble lies in the Supreme Court?s treatment of the Takings Clause, particularly the Court?s disastrous 1978 precedent in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York. In that regrettable decision the Court permitted New York?s Landmarks Preservation Commission to strip Penn Central of its lucrative air rights over Grand Central Station without providing any compensation?just or otherwise?for the loss. In essence, the commission forbid the company from erecting an office tower on top of Grand Central in order to preserve the train depot?s famous physical appearance.

That certainly sounds like a public use. After all, if the public gets to enjoy the aesthetic benefits of this untouched architectural marvel, why shouldn?t the public foot the bill via just compensation? As Justice William Rehnquist correctly observed in his dissent?where he was joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice John Paul Stevens?New York had clearly ?destroyed?in a literal sense, 'taken'?substantial property rights of Penn Central.?

Furthermore, if the public thought its tax dollars were being ill-spent on that particular use, voters could take political action against the officials responsible for the offending regulation. That?s how it works when the government seizes land via eminent domain. (Which is not to say that eminent domain takings are free from corruption or abuse.) At the very least the property owners shouldn?t be the only ones bearing the cost of New York?s commitment to historical preservation.

Yet in his majority opinion in Penn Central, Justice William Brennan showed little concern for either property rights or public accountability. ?A ?taking? may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government,? Brennan wrote. It was a convenient trick that denied Penn Central its air rights so long as the government didn?t build anything on top of Grand Central either?which was the whole point of the regulation in the first place. Furthermore, Brennan?s decision placed the burden of proof entirely on the victimized property owners, establishing a pro-government standard that gave the green light to uncompensated regulatory takings across the country.

That?s the ill-conceived precedent hovering over the Goleta rent control case. Until the Supreme Court reconsiders Penn Central and its dangerously flawed approach to the Takings Clause, property owners will remain at the mercy of unaccountable politicians, overzealous regulators, and precedent-bound courts. There?s nothing just about that.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Last week, after spending $600,000 on legal fees, Jay and Stephanie Burkholder gave up their fight to keep a three-acre commercial property that the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority wants to condemn. Although the seizure is supposedly aimed at alleviating "blight" and assisting the expansion of the Carilion Clinic, the property, which houses a flooring business, is in perfectly good condition, and the clinic does not even want the land. According to The Roanoke Times, "Carilion made a commitment to buy the property and has said it will honor that deal, but the health care provider does not have a need for the land." So the redevelopment authority, in the name of fighting blight, is seizing the decidedly unblighted site of a profitable business for a purpose that no longer exists, meaning it probably will sit vacant until the authority finds a new use for it. Why? Presumably just to teach the Burkholders (and other potential victims of eminent domain abuse) who is really in charge.

Among other things, notesRichmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle, the case shows that requiring "blight" to justify forcible transfers of property from one private owner to another is not much of a protection:

The Burkholders' property lies in an area that a consultant for the city said was blighted, although their own property was not blighted. In 2007, the General Assembly passed a law stipulating that a property must be blighted in order to be condemned for redevelopment purposes. Roanoke's housing authority filed to condemn the Burkholders' property two days before the law took effect.

In his ruling giving the green light to the condemnation, Roanoke Circuit Court Judge William Broadhurst seemed pained by the case. "Obviously desirous of having the [Carilion biomedical complex] located within its borders, the City approached RRHA and requested that it initiate an investigation into whether the area qualified for redevelopment due to blight," he wrote. He noted that the Burkholders' property was "in fine condition." He noted that "meetings were held periodically between representatives of the City, RRHA, Carilion, and some members of the evaluation team while the evaluations and inspections were underway."

Moreover, the Burkholders "produced documentary evidence of correspondence between the City Attorney's office and RRHA clearly suggesting that the City was pressuring RRHA to come up with findings that would correspond with the terms the City had reached with Carilion." All of this "gives substance to [the Burkholders'] accusation that the blight conditions found by RRHA did not exist."

But none of that mattered in the end, because according to the Supreme Court of Virginia, "all presumptions are in favor of the validity of the exercise of municipal power."

The 2007 law was part of the nationwide legislative response to Kelo v. New London, the wildly unpopular 2005 Supreme Court decision endorsing the use of eminent domain for economic redevelopment even in the absence of blight. But as I noted in a column last year, many of the post-Kelo reforms were mostly for show.

Hinkle argues that the presumption in eminent domain cases should favor the property owner. Citing Justice Clarence Thomas, he notes the "odd jurisprudential result" of the courts' habitual deference to the judgments of redevelopment authorities:

Courts would never defer to the other branches of government by letting them dictate what constitutes the constitutional grounds for searching a property, [Thomas] wrote. Yet they now defer almost wholesale when it comes to "the infinitely more intrusive step" of tearing one down.

Ilya Somin explored "The Limits of Anti-Kelo Legislation" in a 2007 Reason article. Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice, which represented the property owners in Kelo, offered a more optmistic view.

In its notorious 2009 decision upholding the use of eminent domain on behalf of a professional basketball stadium in Brooklyn, New York?s highest court acknowledged that ?there remains a hypothetical case in which we might intervene to prevent an urban redevelopment condemnation on public use grounds?where ?the physical conditions of an area might be such that it would be irrational and baseless to call it substandard and insanitary.??

That case is no longer hypothetical.

On June 1, New York?s Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Kaur v. Urban Development Corporation. At issue is the state?s controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University, which wants free rein to build a sweeping new 17-acre research campus in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville. To that end, Columbia joined forces with the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the powerful yet little-known state agency authorized to bypass zoning laws and seize private property via eminent domain. In July 2008 the ESDC declared Manhattanville to be ?blighted,? the state of severe economic disrepair required to trigger an eminent domain taking under state law.

But Columbia?s schemes came to a halt last December when a state appellate court struck down the ESDC?s actions. Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, Justice James Catterson denounced the ESDC for being ?biased in Columbia?s favor? and condemned the agency?s blight determination as ?mere sophistry.? It?s now up to the Court of Appeals to decide whether Justice Catterson got it right.

He did. As lead attorney and former New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Norman Siegel has been able to prove thanks to reams of documents retrieved via the state?s Freedom of Information Law, Columbia and the ESDC actively colluded in order to produce the very conditions of blight that would then allow the ESDC to seize property on the university?s behalf. This documentary record, which Siegel carefully details in the legal brief he submitted to the Court of Appeals, offers a convincing and damning portrait of government malfeasance on behalf of an elite private institution.

In 2006, for instance, the ESDC hired the planning firm Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (AKRF) to perform an ?impartial? blight study of Manhattanville. Yet as internal documents later revealed, the study was explicitly designed to rubber stamp the Columbia-ESDC agenda. In its initial outline, AKRF promised to ?focus on characteristics that demonstrate blight conditions? and to emphasize ?highlighting any physical blight that may be present.? In other words, the purpose of the report wasn?t to objectively determine if blight conditions were present, it was to ?focus? on a pre-ordained conclusion that benefitted Columbia.

And AKRF was hardly a neutral party. Not only was the firm on Columbia?s payroll at that point, but at least six different AKRF employees were working on both the blight study and the redevelopment plan?a flagrant conflict of interests. Indeed, as New York?s Appellate Division, First Department concluded in an earlier decision related to the Manhattanville expansion plan, AKRF served an ?advocacy function for Columbia? and suffered an ?inherent conflict in serving two masters.?

AKRF?s ?impartial? study was even worse. For starters, AKRF failed to mention that Columbia owned 76 percent of the property in the neighborhood and was therefore directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of blight conditions that it found. Of the five buildings cited as being hazardous to the public, for example, four turned out to be under Columbia?s control. Similarly, all seven buildings cited for hazardous garbage or debris are Columbia-owned and all 12 examples of vermin occurred in Columbia buildings. Yet despite Columbia?s destructive and illegal behavior, the ESDC still plans to reward the university by seizing the last holdout properties on its behalf.

Equally disturbing is the fact that Columbia owns 17 of the 18 vacant buildings cited in the AKRF study. As numerous tenants from those properties have now reported, Columbia refused to perform basic and necessary repairs, which both pushed tenants out and manufactured the ugly conditions that later advanced the university?s long-term agenda. As Nick Sprayregen, one of the embattled property owners involved in the case, observed in a 2008 Wall Street Journal article, "Only a few years ago, this area was undergoing a resurgence. Virtually all property was occupied, many by long-standing family operations such as my own. Now most of those businesses are gone?forced out by the university."

Indeed, AKRF openly acknowledged Columbia?s blight-making role in the preliminary findings it delivered to the ESDC, where the firm identified "Open violations in CU Buildings" and "History of CU repairs to properties" among its "issues of concern.? To make matters worse, Columbia bullied local property owners with the threat of government abuse. As Ramon Diaz, owner of the popular Manhattanville restaurant La Floridita, told student journalist Armin Rosen, ?Columbia was using the threat of eminent domain before they even had it approved.? According to Diaz, ?When people were being difficult, they would always insinuate that they were going to get a lot less if [the ESDC] could exercise eminent domain.?

Thanks to those threats and to some aggressive land buying, Columbia now owns 76 percent of the neighborhood. Combine that with the 15 percent of Manhattanville controlled by either New York City or by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and Columbia effectively controls 91 percent. That?s more than enough land to build a swanky new campus without the forcible government seizure of anybody?s private property.

In sum, a powerful state agency secretly colluded with a powerful private university in order to trample constitutional rights, violate the letter and spirit of the law, and force law-abiding tenants out of their homes and businesses in order to manufacture self-serving blight conditions that disfigured an otherwise livable and commercially viable neighborhood. If there was ever a case where New York?s highest court should intervene against eminent domain abuse, this is it.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Bonus Reason.tv Video: Watch the staff and patrons of Freddy?s Bar in Brooklyn discuss their fight against New York?s eminent domain abuse.

The sleepy Morses Line border crossing between Vermont and Quebec has fewer than 15,000 vehicle crossings per year. So, naturally, the Department of Homeland Security wants to improve it through property seizure:

It intends to acquire 4.9 acres of border land on a dairy farm owned for three generations by the Rainville family. Last month, the Rainvilles learned that if they refuse to sell the land for $39,500, the government intends to seize it by eminent domain.

The Rainvilles call this an unjustified land-grab by federal bullies.

"They are trying to steamroll us," said Brian Rainville, 36, a high school government and civics teacher whose grandfather bought the farm in 1946 and whose parents and two brothers run it now. "We have a buyer holding a gun to our head saying you have to sell or else." [...]

Homeland Security officials counter that modernizing border facilities should be a national priority. US Customs and Border Protection received $420 million in federal stimulus funds to renovate ports of entry along the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Whole Boston Globe article here. Read another from the alt weekly Seven Days (source of the Matthew Thorsen photo above). Hat tip to reader Michael Navarette.

The Contra Costa Times reports on some great news from San Pablo, California:

The San Pablo City Council this week dropped plans to extend its eminent domain authority, bending to a raucous groundswell of mistrust and resentment of city government that included threats of a recall.

The council action -- 4-0 with Councilman Arturo Cruz abstaining -- amounted to a no-vote on a series of ordinances and resolutions to amend redevelopment plans covering more than 90 percent of the city; one of the ordinances would have reinstated for 12 years the agency's powers of eminent domain, which lapsed in March 2009. It ends, at least for now, an emotional, four-months-long public debate during which opposition solidified and city officials failed to rally support for eminent domain as a land-acquisition tool to facilitate development.

Read the whole story here.