BCT Editorial – 1/1/07

This page was last updated on January 3, 2007.

Right move; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 1, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Property rights are important.”

[RWC] Look out for the next sentence. Remember, this is the same newspaper that has published at least 10 smoking ban editorials since March 2005, demonstrating an indifference toward property rights.

“However, the rights of the individual must be balanced with the rights of neighbors as well as the good of the community as a whole.

“Such is the case of Pittsburgh’s attempt to use eminent domain to purchase the Garden Theatre, the city’s last X-rated porn palace.

“City officials want to take the property because it sits in the middle of a planned multimillion-dollar redevelopment project on the Northside. The Associated Press reports the theater has been the sole holdout and that 46 other properties have been acquired.”

[RWC] What the editorial failed to note is “[c]ity officials want to take the property” from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen. This is not a case of using eminent domain for a public use, like a school, courthouse, road, et cetera.

The theater is not “blighted” property and is in operation to this day. According to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, the building may not even be demolished but instead may be refurbished “as a cultural venue.” In a previous editorial denouncing the use of eminent domain for so-called economic development, the Times seemed to indicate lack of blight should be a consideration. What’s changed since January 2006?

“The effort, which has dragged on for nine years, could be coming to an end.

“Lawyers for the group that owns the theater had claimed the city wanted to shut the theater because officials objected to it showing pornographic films. Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that condemning the theater is content neutral and does not violate free-speech laws.

“Eminent domain should be used with great discretion, and that’s what Pittsburgh has done. The neighborhood and the city will benefit from this ruling.”

[RWC] I’m sorry, but how does seizing non-blighted property currently in use and giving it to someone else demonstrate “great discretion?”

The Times published another editorial decrying the U.S. Supreme Court “Kelo” decision. What’s changed since June 2005?

Here’s the answer to both “what’s changed” questions. Since the previous editorials addressed decisions for out of state eminent domain abuses, the Times could afford to sound as if it were a strong supporter of property rights. When it came time for a local decision, however, we get reaffirmation of the Times true position on property rights.