A New York Times editorial applauds the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London last week.

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the “property rights” movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain. —New York Times

First, I think they misspelled “unreasonable.” There is no true public use involved in this eminent domain action, just large corporations that want to get bigger. Second, Jacob Sullum points out that property rights are human rights and that theTimes would naturally be in favor of eminent domain, since they have benefited from it.

“The New York Times is obviously making out, and who’s suffering?” Arnold Hatters’ Mark Rubin wonders after steam-blocking a customer’s new fedora by hand. “The local businessmen. The lower and middle class. The guys that are here working six, seven days a week to make ends meet. We are the ones that are being displaced and inconvenienced and ripped off.” — Scripps Howard News Service

The news service also reports that three people died as a result of an eminent domain action in Hurst, Texas.

I rarely use the words liberal or conservative, trying to take people on their own merits or lack thereof. But I have wondered, why do so many people who claim to be on the “left” support the big corporations over the person just trying to get by, or just trying to live in peace? That doesn’t sound very progressive — unless you’re building yet another shopping mall full of goods made from sweatshop labor in Asia…