A Stitch in Haste

What did Justice Stevens say in Kelo about how "private for private takings" would likely not be abused as much as the dissenters feared?

A legal foundation ... filed a long-expected legal challenge Thursday to the $280 million in tax breaks and other subsidies Dell Inc. received last year after promising to build a plant employing hundreds of workers in Winston-Salem.

The lawsuit, filed by the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, charges the incentives violate state constitutional prohibitions against the use of public resources for private benefit and the failure to treat taxpayers equally.

"The state is taking tax revenue and selectively handing it out to a few large companies in the interest of economic development," [a litigant] said of the Dell package Thursday.

In exchange for creating at least 1,500 jobs at the plant, and investing at least $100 million over 15 years in the area, Round Rock, Texas-based Dell is getting $242 million in state incentives and a local package of $37.2 million to cover startup, tax relief and other costs.

Now this wasn't an eminent domain case — the government didn't seize any property to give to Dell. But they did seize money (i.e, tax dollars). And if the government can seize your property to give to a better-than-you private corporation, then why can't they also give your tax dollars to those same politically favored corporations that promise economic benefits later down the road?

This may be strictly a state law case, but I'll love to see whether and how Dell tries to invoke at least the spirit if not the letter of Kelo in this litigation.