For years, the site of the property condemned in the controversial Kelo v. City of New London case has stood empty. Now however, there are recent reports that the city of New London has found a developer interested in building townhouses on the site (see here andhere) [HT: my RA Eva Choi, and Michael O’Malley of the Yale University Press].

Several previous plans to develop on the condemned property have gone under. In November, the Pfizer Corporation, whose lobbying helped instigate the initial takings, announced the planned closing of its headquarters in New London. That step further reduced the likelihood that anything will be built in the area. It remains to be soon whether the townhouse development will work out better than these previous efforts. At present, it is not clear how much the new project will cost taxpayers, and a news report indicates that “[c]onstruction on the project will not occur any time soon.”

Even if the townhouses are eventually built, it is unlikely that they will generate enough development to offset the value of the numerous homes and businesses wiped out by the condemnations, the opportunity cost of having the area lie empty for years, and the over $80 million in public funds already expended on the project.

Ironically, much of the condemned area was a lower-middle class residential neighborhood before the takings, and New London’s current plan is to use the land for roughly the same purpose. The City could have “achieved” this result at far lower cost simply by leaving the neighborhood alone in the first place. Taken as a whole, the Kelo story exemplifies the ways in which “economic development” takings not only victimize property owners, but also often destroy more development than they create (see also my more extended discussion inthis article, which cites figures for the costs of the Kelo takings).

Ilya has added an update worth checking out. Me linky. You clicky.

You remember that “Constitution” thingy? You know, the anachronism from a bygone era, which Democrat politicians and judges take an oath to uphold and then promptly forget about — or claim that it’s a “living and breathing” document?

To show you how far left the Democrat Party has moved over the last couple of decades, a serious debate appears to be raging within the party over the role of the United States Senate. Not just procedures like the filibuster, mind you, but whether there actually should be a Senate at all.

Go read the whole thing [including an excellent brief history lesson on why we have checks and balances].

I am reminded once again how few people realize that we do not live in a democracy; we live in a consitutional republic. Given how the populace at large thinks, while I am certainly not in love with how our republic is functioning, moving toward more “democracy” would obviously be worse.

Mob rule.

Why do I get the feeling that precious few have read the Federalist Papers?