NY Times cheers Kelo. Blogger analyzes.

In yesterday's Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for a local government to take away a person's property when the government feels it has a better use for the property than the individual. Here's how CNN began it's Kelo report:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

The New York Times editors cheered the Kelo decision which only affects the rights of law-abiding Americans, not terrorists.

But Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters isn't cheering. He's provides background to the decision and eviscerates the Times' editorial. Here's part of what Ed says:

I suppose I should not be surprised that the New York Times argues that the ends justify the means, but the fact that they so baldly buy into this shows just how badly they've slid into the statist mindset. What they endorse is the notion that people must live in their homes at the whim of city governments, who only have to justify their seizure by creating a plan that asserts that another private developer will put their land to better use than the homeowner.

Because of Kelo, it's now much easier for developers, ever generous at campaign time, and local pols to cozy up and declare an individual's property is needed for "the public good."

The Times tries to reassure readers by telling them that Justice Anthony Kennedy said Kelo can't be used just to make a "developer or other private party become richer."

Really? Here are two questions for Justice Kennedy and the Times' editors.

Do you know of a single instance of a developer saying the purpose of his development project involving condemnation of private property was only to make him rich or richer?

Aren't such projects always done to make the community more beautiful, provide employment, encourage tourism and strengthen the tax base?

Ed Morrissey's post is here. He links to the NYT editorial.

The CNN report's here.