On May 13, 2008, we reported how the defenders of the wretched Kelo decision took to the pages of Right of Way magazine in an ostensible refutation of the facts underlying the Kelo controversy, claiming that the adverse publiity that Kelo received was unwarranted, and was drummed up by a biased press. See Perception v. Reality: Media Bias in the Reporting of Kelo, by John Brooks and William Busch, Right of Way, May/June 2008. We covered it in our blog The Empire Strikes Back — Sort Of. We are now pleased to follow up with the report that Scott Bullock, the lawyer who argued Suzette Kelo’s case before the U.S. Supreme ourt has provided a response in the July/August 2008 issue of Right of Way, p. 12, in an article entitled The Truth About Kelo.
Bullock provides a point-by-point refutation of the original article. It’s well worth reading if you have access to Right of Way magazine. According to Bullock, the original article contained a number of inaccuracies, the most telling of which, in our book at least, was that Brooks and Busch attempted to defend the Kelo taking as being for road widening. Not so, says Bullock — it was for economic redevelopment, just as it appears in the U.S. Supreme ourt opinion.