In [dis]honor of the 140th anniversary since pinko pin-up Vladimir Ilyich Lenin spawned, I’d like to present the Lenin Prize for the Reification of Destructive Ideologies to ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis. Ms. Lewis has taken a lot of heat since the ACORN-appearing-to-aid-and-abet-child-prostitution scandal broke, but remains incredibly committed to her organization–one based on a particularly vile and inane form of bureaucratic socialism. As the leader of a group that can claim more credit (excluding government) for perpetuating urban poverty than any other, the following should not be surprising.
Earlier today, Reason‘s Damon Root posted an e-mail authored by Lewis disparaging a Brooklyn man whose home was condemned through eminent domain:
Finally, the itch that was Daniel Goldstein has been scratched and scratched out. After almost seven years of flawed strategies, smear campaigns, stupid tactics, disingenuous rhetoric and total disregard for people who have lived in the downtown Brooklyn community for years before he even thought about coming here; finally he got what he really wanted. A Deal. Not for the community he claimed to love so much, but for the only beneficiary of his community of one, himself, Double Dealing Danny Goldstein.
Her cranky little missive is in response to Goldstein’s announcement that he has agreed to vacate his home next month. Goldstein lives/lived in the Atlantic Yards area of Brooklyn, which is currently undergoing forced redevelopment. Naturally, as with most comprehensive redevelopment plans, this one entails kicking many low- and middle-income residents and business owners to the curb in order to transfer the property to a wealthy private developer.
But why, you might ask, would ACORN, an organization with a stated mission to “[help] those who have historically been locked out,” support wealthy private developer Bruce Ratner’s land grab over the rights of residents? Because even for committed socialist dupes, money talks. Ratner quietly funneled money into the group in 2008 following a funding panic in the wake of a multi-million dollar embezzlement scandal involving high-ranking ACORN officials. It is also alleged by a former ACORN official-turned-whistle-blower that ACORN and Lewis were promised kickbacks from Ratner in the form of control of new affordable housing units, an arrangement that could net the organization tens of millions of dollars in the coming years.
For more on Atlantic Yards, the state’s land grab, and the Ratner plan, visit Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn.
Popular outrage over eminent domain abuse may have waned a bit since the Supreme Court’s poorly-reasoned Kelo ruling in 2005, but economic development takings remain incredibly unpopular throughout the country. Public opinion polls indicate that more than 80 percent of Americans oppose eminent domain for economic development, which is surprising when one considers the relative inaction on the part of state legislatures to meaningfully protect their citizens’ property rights.
However, there are reasons to be optimistic. Brooklynites fighting the proposed Atlantic Yards development filed a lawsuit today challenging the legality of the Metro Transit Authority’s land handout to the private developer. In Texas, citizens will soon vote on widely-supported Proposition 11, which would amend the Texas Constitution to prevent area blight designations and condemnations, and prohibit takings for purposes of economic development. If it passes, which seems likely, Texas property owners will have some of the strongest protections against eminent domain abuse in the nation.
But there is a lot of work to do. Many in this country are still largely defenseless against development takings, so the question arises: What can property owners do to take back their rights from revenue-hungry municipalities and rent-seeking developers? The law, as it stands, is against them in most respects, but there are legislative avenues worth pursuing.
A few of the most politically-feasible are:
- Enacting state legislation mandating the creation and maintenance of a public eminent domain database accessible via the Internet. Currently, data on development takings are difficult to obtain due to the fact that eminent domain condemnations are ordered at the local level. Right now, an empirical analysis of takings within a state would require contacting every county clerk and requesting specific filings. A central state database would allow social scientists, journalists, and the public to examine the economic effects of eminent domain use and abuse.
- Enacting state legislation defining “public use” as “use by a government body,” which would deny municipalities the opportunity to claim that their takings deals with private developers serve the “public purpose” because they will ostensibly increase tax revenue at some future date.
- Enacting state legislation mandating that blight be determined on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
- Enacting state legislation mandating that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) be limited to the length of time required to complete public infrastructure improvements within a given TIF district. This would reduce the ability of rent-seeking private developers to collude with local officials to subsidize development projects.
These proposals could also be enacted through ballot initiatives, if the state allows them. As eminent domain is primarily a local issue, Congress is a less likely venue for legislative relief. However, it is possible for Congress to tie federal development and highway funding to takings behavior (as they presently do for myriad other “carrot-and-stick” purposes). For example, a bill was introduced in the previous legislative session that would cut off federal development grant money for 10 years to any state that permitted an eminent domain condemnation for the benefit of a private developer.
With the five-year anniversary of Kelo coming up next summer, a renewed interest in the harm caused by eminent domain abuse will hopefully materialize.
The multi-billion dollar Atlantic Yards development project in Brooklyn, New York–subsidized to the tune of $1.6 billion by New York taxpayers–is facing new scrutiny after politically-connected developer Bruce Ratner’s ties with embattled left-wing activist group ACORN were revealed. As it currently stands, the public-financed redevelopment plan relies on extensive use of eminent domain that would leave many long-time residents and business owners out in the cold. But ACORN, as one would expect, is framing the debate in racial terms:
ACORN’s New York director, Bertha Lewis, is a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of Ratner’s development. At a news conference announcing the project would proceed, Lewis, onstage, planted photo-op kisses on both Ratner and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Lewis has also framed it on racial terms: “The overwhelming folks who are opposed are white people and wealthier people and more secure people and people who just arrived. *** We’re tired of being pushed out.”
It helps inspire Lewis, one imagines, that ACORN got that loan from Ratner and that Ratner gave her a hand in devising the low-income housing portions of his development. Ratner, it appears, has bought an ally, not just with cash, but with power — ACORN will now be shaping who lives where. “We’re developers now,” Lewis told New York Magazine.
But what Lewis and ACORN don’t mention is that Ratner quietly directed $1.5 million in grants and low-interest loans to the cash-strapped group last year–after major foundation support dried up due to an embezzlement scandal–leading Atlantic Yards opponent and former Working Families Party (a New York minor party with deep ties to ACORN) activist Patti Hagan to declare, “ACORN is a corrupt organization that had its silence bought by Ratner.” Opposition groups, including Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, have alleged corruption in the past, and even fence-sitting local politicians are questioning the development timeline and the security of future funding, which do not look promising. In fact, a new study estimates that the Atlantic Yards project would take twice as long to complete than Ratner currently claims. But objections from actual neighborhood activists are unlikely to change ACORN’s mind on the project. An ACORN whistleblower says the group stands to bring in at least $5 million annually in housing revenue thanks to a cushy deal brokered by Ratner.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 