OPINION/COMMENTARY

Why The New York Times ♥s Eminent Domain

On September 24, 2001, as New York firefighters were still picking their comrades’ body parts out of the World Trade Center wreckage, New York Times Co. Vice Chairman and Senior Vice President Michael Golden announced that the Gray Lady was ready to do its part in the healing. “We believe there could not be a greater contribution,” Golden told a clutch of city officials and journalists, “than to have the opportunity to start construction of the first major icon building in New York City after the tragic events of Sept. 11.” Bruce Ratner, president of the real estate development company working with the Times on its proposed new Eighth Avenue headquarters, called the project a “very important testament to our values, culture and democratic ideals.” Those “values” and “democratic ideals” included using eminent domain to forcibly evict 55 businesses—including a trade school, a student housing unit, a Donna Karan outlet, and several mom-and-pop stores—against their will, under the legal cover of erasing “blight,” in order to clear ground for a 52-story skyscraper. The Times and Ratner, who never bothered making an offer to the property owners, bought the Port Authority–adjacent property at a steep discount ($85 million) from a state agency that seized the 11 buildings on it; should legal settlements with the original tenants exceed that amount, taxpayers will have to make up the difference. On top of that gift, the city and state offered the Times $26 million in tax breaks for the project, and Ratner even lobbied to receive $400 million worth of U.S. Treasury–backed Liberty Bonds—instruments created by Congress to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. Which is four miles away. If you think the Times’ editorial division would be outraged to see the business side trampling the Little Guy, you probably haven’t been following the political evolution of the nation’s leading newspapers. For decades now, the country’s elite dailies and those papers that emulate them have deliberately eschewed individual stories in favor of broader “trend” pieces (especially when it comes to crime); routinely endorsed government action to cure society’s ills; and mocked the “tabloid” populism of the more right-leaning media organizations that dwell on single cases of outrage. Like the activist who loves The People but despises every actual person he meets, the Times’ editorial page takes liberal stands when the issue is safely abstract—but when it comes to the paper’s profits and political battles, the Little Guy can get bent....

Green Multiple Personality Disorder?

Has the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) finally acquired the mainstream respectability it craves? It has produced a new report "The Green Buck -- using economic tools to deliver conservation goals -- a WWF field guide;" which is posted on a new website: www.biodiversityeconomics.org. This all looks very mainstream. But, unfortunately, that is all it is. Just a new look. From the beginning, WWF has tried to position itself as mainstream. Its founding President was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Duke of Edinburgh is Emeritus President. The Queen of Jordan is a Trustee. There is crossover among its senior personnel with Board memberships of well known international companies. WWF even has a "partnership" with the World Bank and WWF staff like to refer to themselves as the "suits" (as opposed to the board short and dreadlock fraternity) of the environmental movement. It relishes shots by radical environmental groups that it has sold out and is a global corporation just like IBM and BP. WWF's dirty little secret is that it has done more than any other organization to demonize the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since the WTO was formed in 1994, WWF has promoted, more effectively than any other group, the idea that the WTO threatens sustainable development and prevents protection of the environment. This is now gospel for anti-globalization NGOs. WWF fosters networks to promote this (for example the Centres for International Environmental Law), and provides the intellectual ammunition to other groups -- Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and numerous other environmental bodies -- so they might also fold an anti-free trade ideology into their polemics about the environment....

THE GREEN WAVE

According to a May 28 story in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, an environmental group successfully sued to stop a project that the Army Corps of Engineers proposed to hold back the surge that spilled into the city on Sept. 5. The corps' plan was to use floodgates to keep water from the Gulf of Mexico from pouring into Lake Pontchartrain on the city's north side.

Save Our Wetlands, the environmental group that successfully sued in 1977, claimed the series of floodgates proposed by the corps would spoil wetlands. So the corps gave up and went on to other projects. But last year it decided to look again at building structures that would keep the Gulf from gushing into the lake, this time with an eye on more environmentally sensitive construction.

When will the next storm with the fury of Katrina crash into the Big Easy? Maybe 100 years from now. Maybe next month. According to Investor's Business Daily (IBD), this much is certain:

* Structures that will protect New Orleans from a category 5 storm need to be planned and built as soon as possible.
* They also need to be protected from environmental zealots who cannot be allowed to derail -- or even delay -- another project.
* Perhaps the best way to block them is for Congress to exempt such a project from environmental regulations and shield it from lawsuits.
* While Washington gets the project moving, Louisiana lawmakers should do the same at the state level.

Wetlands and fragile ecosystems are important. But in circumstances like the one in which the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama find themselves, protecting them is a luxury. On the other hand, protecting human lives and their critical habitats - them cities - is a necessity, says IBD.

Source: Editorial, "The Green Wave," Investor's Business Daily, September 13, 2005.

For text (subscription required): http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20050912

Federal Judge Dismisses Greenhouse Gas Lawsuit

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by several states and environmental groups aimed at forcing major utility companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouses gases. “Judge Loreta A. Preska deserves a medal for clearly explaining why legal restrictions on CO2 emissions are ‘transcendently legislative’ and thus could not be imposed by a court without violating separation of powers and the judicial doctrine that prohibits courts from reviewing ‘non-justiciable political questions,’” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. The suit would have required Judge Preska to craft an elaborate set of legislative responses, including determination of proper levels of greenhouse gas emissions, necessary reduction levels for each company and appropriate impacts on U.S. national security and international treaty negotiations, among others. “The CO2 litigation game has always been about bypassing the political branches,” continued Lewis. “By refusing to legislate from the bench, Judge Preska has squashed the latest attempt by the state attorneys general to substitute their will for that of the people's elected representatives.”....

Hillary's Hurricane Rule: Gulf Storms Require Gas-Pump Populism

Sen. Hillary Clinton sometimes talks as if she wants oil and gas to be cheap and abundant, but she never stops working to make them expensive and scarce. So, what has Mrs. Clinton done as a U.S. senator to decrease dependence on foreign oil and advance an “energetic” energy policy? She has opposed drilling in any part of the massive Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. She has opposed new drilling off our coasts. She has even opposed drilling for natural gas in New York’s Finger Lakes National Forest, co-sponsoring a bill that would permanently ban such drilling. Except when hurricanes cause sudden spikes in oil prices, Mrs. Clinton finds it politically expedient to tailor both her rhetoric and actions to the elitist aims of her environmentalist friends. “I have voted against opening [ANWR] to drilling at every opportunity during my time in the Senate,” she boasts on her website. In 2003, Oceana, an environmentalist group associated with actor Ted Danson, gave her an award at a star-studded Hollywood dinner. “Clinton,” said a release about the award, “joined California Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to strike provisions in the Energy Bill that would have undermined current protections against new offshore drilling along California and other coastal states.” Between last year’s and this year’s hurricane seasons, Mrs. Clinton again voted against drilling in ANWR and against the energy bill--even though it did not open ANWR or any new offshore areas to drilling. She also declared her opposition to a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound that would help New Yorkers import the fuel they need to heat their homes that Mrs. Clinton opposes letting them drill in Finger Lakes National Forest....

Hollywood Animal-Rights Vandals Join “PETA Kills Animals” Debate With Center for Consumer Freedom

A billboard-sized dose of the truth from the Center for Consumer Freedom has struck a nerve with Hollywood animal rights activists. Last night a “www.PetaKillsAnimals.com” billboard located near Paramount Studios and erected by the Center in “dishonor” of PETA’s 25th anniversary was defaced with black spray-paint. The vandalism may well have been retaliation for the unwanted birthday present the Center for Consumer Freedom gave PETA Saturday night at Paramount Studios. Using the same protest tactics that made PETA famous, Center for Consumer Freedom representatives took to the stage at PETA’s star-studded gala with banners reading “www.PetaKillsAnimals.com” when Pamela Anderson and Fred Willard were introduced as the event’s emcees. Outside Paramount, a dozen Center for Consumer Freedom supporters held signs and shouted “PETA Kills Animals” in a protest aimed at arriving celebrities. “It’s sad that PETA supporters can’t handle the truth about this hypocritical group,” said Center for Consumer Freedom research director David Martosko. “Instead of finding loving homes for the homeless animals it receives, the self-righteous and holier-than-thou PETA kills 80 percent of them. PETA has a lot of explaining to do, especially to the celebrities who opened their wallets on Saturday.”....

Animal Rights Group's Offensive Methods Insult Religion

David Martosko, director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, says People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is using tactics that offend and show contempt for many religions, especially Judaism and Christianity. Martosko says PETA historically has demonstrated that it apparently has had no problem with giving offense. However, he says the group seems in recent years to be going out of its way to offend people of faith -- particularly mainstream Christians. For example, CCF's research director notes, in the last year the animal rights group has "held mock crucifixions, where they would supposedly crucify fellow PETA activists who were wearing pig masks, and that sort of thing." Also, he notes, the organization has "erected billboards in parts of the United States that showed pictures of a small piglet along with the message that 'He died for your sins.'" In addition, Martosko says one long-running PETA campaign claims Jesus was a vegetarian -- an assertion that the researcher feels is a deliberate distortion of scripture. He contends that PETA activists are using religious icons and ideas to wage what he calls a "vegan holy war," and they are not above twisting God's Word to do it....

School Tells PETA's Propaganda Machine To Move On

"Please accept our congratulations for your bold stand this week in denying People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) access to the children at Williams Middle School." So begins a letter we sent today to a South Carolina school principal and the district superintendent, who wisely blocked PETA's attempt to brainwash children with anti-chicken animal rights propaganda. As the Florence, South Carolina Morning News reported, PETA's attempt to scare students about the meat they eat "quickly fizzled after police and school officials confronted organization representatives and escorted them off school property." When police told PETA activists to take their anti-chicken act to the other side of the road, a spokesman feigned shock, saying (presumably with a straight face): Usually the administrators are happy that we're there. The parents are happy because they know that we're bringing a good message of compassion and health to the kids. Ahhhhh, yes, that compassionate message, which tells children their moms are murderers. And that health message, which warns kids away from important foods such as chicken and fish....