Editorializing on AY: Noticing New York's Michael White and the WSJ vs. the New York Daily News editorial

There was a method beyond Noticing New York blogger Michael D.D. White's running silent commentary on the Atlantic Yards bond deal Tuesday. Remember, and most importantly, no public comment was allowed. Here's part of White's message:

Of course, you should be worrying that these bonds will default and consequently don’t deserve a good rating. A default will negatively affect the market for all New York issuers. But that is not all you should be worrying about. Moody’s has warned that the entire state is weeks away from a substantial downgrade of its credit rating if it doesn’t close its budget gap.

Wall Street Journal editorial

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial headlined Property Owners Get Dunked On: Another victory for the powerful over property rights, grasped the issue:

In allowing the property seizure, the Court of Appeals dodged some of the central challenges to the condemnation, including whether the Empire State Development Corporation's designation of blight in the Atlantic Yards area was applied after the stadium project had already been planned, making it a "pretext." Nor did the court take on the question—at the heart of eminent domain law since Kelo—whether economic development may be considered a public use under the New York Constitution.

Daily News editorial

Contrast the above with another (duh) wrongheaded New York Daily News editorial, headlined A Net gain for Brooklyn: High court did right by the city in Atlantic Yards lawsuit, which claimed:

On the upside, the court rendered expeditious judgment, positioning Ratner to meet a year-end deadline for financing the start of construction and - even more important - established a wise standard for the use of eminent domain in New York State.

It did nothing of the sort. It acknowledged that the standard may be very fuzzy, but said it was not the place for courts to intervene. More critique from Eric McClure of No Land Grab.