This is nonsense . . . Blogger Jim Ostrowski out of the Buffalo area knows it, and he decided to do something about it by suing the state to stop the handouts. According to this YNN Story, the suit just received a green light at an appellate level.
Ostrowski said, "Those businesses that can't survive without subsidies, should go bankrupt fellas."Readers of this blog are familiar with that argument . . . It's been made here on several occasions in relation to:
His basic argument is that the state Constitution forbids state money from going to private corporations.
- The Malta chip fab plant (11/9/06)
- Herkimer County (4/3/09)
- The New Hartford Business Park & Route 840 (8/28/08)(8/5/08)
- The Westmoreland School District (10/17/06)
- The Hotel Utica (6/16/08) (7/9/06)
"No county, city, town, village or school district shall give or loan any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or association, or private undertaking, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in, or bonds of, any private corporation or association . . . "The YNN Story indicates that the provision was added to the Constitution because people were upset that their money was going to support the railroads; however, ever since, courts have expanded what was allowed if it created a "public benefit" . . . We have seen this "public benefit" argument used to justify taking land from one person and giving it to another in Auburn.
Railroads create a clear "public benefit," but the constitutional provision was designed specifically to prevent public funds from being given to them and to other private entities. Almost any activity can be argued as somehow creating a "public benefit." When the power of government is used to take from one and give to another, to favor one person's activities over another's, that is oppression. . . . It is obvious that somewhere along the line the courts have gotten off the track.
the Attorney General's Office is asking for the appellate court's decision to be dismissed, but if not, for the state's highest court to hear the case right away because they say this case could jeopardize the state's potential economic recovery.The Attorney General's job is to enforce the law (including the State's Constitution) and not worry about "potential economic recovery." When government becomes invested in one company, it is tempting for government to use its power to squash that company's competitors. This seems to have already happened with our Attorney General, and his misplaced priorities have already been commented upon (11/5/09).
Hopefully the Court of Appeals will acknowledge the oppressive environment that has been created, and start enforcing this constitutional provision as intended by its drafters.
If not, We the People will be placed in a terrible position. We will be forced either to accept more of governmental taking from one of us and giving to another . . . or to exercise Our Right to Abolish Our Government. Help us avoid having to make that choice.