The New York Times certainly got a sweetheart deal when it got the city of New York to steal use eminent domain to acquire the land for their new headquarters. Not only did they get to lease the land at significantly less than the open market would have cost them (and eventually buy it for $1.00), but they also got the right to determine who could rent other space in the building. Who gets excluded?

The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."

In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."

But wait -- I thought eminent domain was the taking of land for a "public purpose". If the public is effectively excluded from the property by a private party, how can it be deemed a public use?

I wonder -- would the Times be willing to see a similar bargain given to Halliburton, or to an oil company?

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, No Land Grab, and The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid)