No friend of property rights

A danger in being a strong advocate for something is that we can overlook obvious drawbacks that our passion blinds us to. The trick is to know which issues affect us that way so we can both doublecheck our reasoning and be open to flags raised by others. I can name numerous subjects I can be snared by: downtown revitalization, regional economic development, advocacy for the mentally ill, a limited federal government and on and on.

I think the new stadium for the Colts has become such an issue for the Indianapolis Star. Caught up in its zeal for the project, the Star editorial page has lost its grasp on common sense and moral clarity. In an editorial about the eminent-domain suit against the N.K. Hurst bean company, the Star pooh-pooh's any idea that this might be an important private-property issue. These are just "ongoing negotiations" that constitute a "rather ordinary part" of a multimillion-dollar transaction. It's not a "romanticized clash between a small family business and a callous state government," and the issue isn't even about "the abuse of eminent domain."

Oh, yes it is. It's an indication of Indiana government's willingness to join in the ongoing shredding of the Constitution's definition of a "public use." Property can now be taken for the "public good," which means, to the state and, apparently, the Star, that a thriving factory can be cynically defined as blighted so the owners of the Indianapolis Colts can be kept happy. I've read the Star's editorial page enough to know that it considers itself a champion of the rights of ordinary people. Unless they own land that gets in the way of something as cool to have as an NFL franchise.