In the country of California, Mark Vargas installed some solar panels. Trouble is that, in a colossal case of failure to plan, his solar panels were installed in the shade of his neighbors’ redwood trees. But get this:

Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett of Sunnyvale, Calif., were criminally prosecuted because redwood trees in their backyard cast shadows over their neighbor’s solar panels.

A judge ordered in December that two of the trees be trimmed back. The couple have had one trimmed, hoping that will satisfy the judge.

Criminally prosecuted and threatened with fines of $1,000/day because their neighbors put solar panels in the shade of their trees. Wow. And, seriously, there’s a law that covers that. Governor Moonbeam signed it back in 1978. Mark Vargas was rewarded by the state despite being stupid enough to install solar panels in the shade. More:

“I still think it is sad that we couldn’t have figured it out between neighbors,” Vargas said. “I offered to pay to remove the trees.”

There’s no figure it out you want X and your neighbors wanted exactly the opposite of X. There’s no figuring that out. Unfortunately for your neighbors, there’s also no shortage of stupid in California law.

Update: I think I’d go find one of those spotted owls and let it live in the trees.

Terry Frank has a round up of Eminent Domain issues in Tennessee.

County workers accidentally burned down a woman’s home. However, the county will only reimburse her for $100K despite her property being assessed at $230K. She volunteered to let two county trucks dump brush on her property. They knocked over a power line that caused the fire. And this is beautiful:

Don Stallions, who heads the Risk Management Department for Blount County, said the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act protects the government from being sued out of existence.

Well, after displaying such incompetence, is that necessarily a bad thing?

“The government used to be immune from law suits,” Stallions said. “People need to realize that the government isn’t like a business. When you sue a business, you get money that was generated as profit by an income-producing company. When you sue the government, it’s the people’s money you’re dealing with.

Really? There was a time when we couldn’t petition the government for a redress of grievances? You know, first amendment and all that?

“The Tort Liability Act allows counties in Tennessee to do business. Without it, our counties wouldn’t be able to function.”

Do your employees really screw up so much that that is an issue?

Stallions said Blount County has had numerous property damage claims in the past, but none that he can recall involving a claim on an entire home.

I guess so.

Via Ben.

Drew Carey on Eminent Domain.

This time, at the federal level. Seems the .gov (particularly, the IRS and DEA) had a lease expire. So, instead of taking their hit and moving on, the .gov went before a judge and, under color of law, forced the owner to extend the lease. This is also halting a major skyscraper renovation project. The judge in this case must be retarded. Or just a disgrace to his office.

Update: Fred Thompson on eminent domain.

By R. Neal.

A few items on the high school in Maryville here and here.

From the post below:

Think about your neighborhood; think about the use of eminent domain on your house. How do you explain these things to our children?

Indeed.

In the city (my the city) they need more high school. One option was to build a new school and another was to expand the existing school. The trouble with the latter plan is that city would have to take land and homes from about thirty people in the subdivision next to the school and there is apparently some dispute with a local company who has filed suit against the city. So, that, of course, is what they’re considering:

“At some point in time, we have to have land,” said Casteel, who later said some nearby land has been promised to the school system.

Then take the promised land and not that of homeowners. More:

“I don’t ever see us going to a two-high school system,” he said.

This issue was covered at Knoxviews a bit back by Flower71. I assume she also wrote this letter to the editor:

Historic neighborhoods will be destroyed. The environment will be damaged. Trees and homes that have been cherished for nearly 100 years will be taken. You can’t replace historic neighborhoods once they are destroyed.

Think about your neighborhood; think about the use of eminent domain on your house. How do you explain these things to our children? When I explained to my children, who have grown up in this historic neighborhood, about the plans for MHS expansion, do you know what they said? “Mommy, someone needs to call the police!” “They can’t tear down peoples houses.” My other son said, “Mom, lets call the President of the United States!”

In NJ:

The New Jersey State Supreme Court issued a blow Wednesday to the way municipalities use their power of eminent domain to acquire private land.

In an unanimous ruling, the court said that for land to be taken against the owner’s wishes it must be “blighted” and not merely “not fully productive.”

The ruling is a victory for private property rights but could make it more difficult to redevelop some communities.

It’s sort of a victory, I suppose. A real victory would have been because that’s unconstitutional.

On Eminent Domain:

“Cities use code words,” explained Supervisor Chris Norby, a longtime foe of eminent domain abuse. “In the 1950s and 1960s, governments used the term ‘urban renewal,’ but critics knew that it was widely called ‘Negro removal.’ These days, we’re looking at forced gentrification,” as cities try to redevelop poorer areas into wealthy areas.

Well, I think it’s more poor removal.

Via Ben, comes the carnival of taxes. Jeez, there’s a carnival for every thing. Soon, we’ll need a carnival of the carnivals.

Really:

Robert Redford has added a celebrity touch to those urging California voters to reject a sweeping eminent domain initiative.

…

Put on the November ballot by property rights activists, Proposition 90 would amend the state Constitution to make it harder and more costly for governments to condemn property or pass regulations that affect land values.

Well, they don’t take property from the rich and famous.

I hate when one set of fundamental rights takes precedent over another fundamental set of rights:

An Ellis County man has been ordered by a judge to keep the noise down on his property during deer season after he was found guilty of a misdemeanor charge of disrupting hunters.

An Ellis County jury found Galen Morris, 38, guilty on Tuesday of violating one count of the state Sportsman’s Rights Act. He was found not guilty of a second, similar charge.

The judge in the case ordered Morris to make sure his children don’t disturb hunters on a neighboring property by playing loud music or driving four-wheelers before noon or after 4 p.m. during deer season, which starts in November. Morris was also issued a $250 fine and a year of probation.

I’m as pro-gun as they get but a man’s property is a man’s property and he’s free to enjoy it in a manner he sees fit, so long as it does not interfere with another’s enjoyment of their property. Hunt somewhere else.

In defense of Kelo, the argument used to justify it or to quell the masses usually goes something like this:

The Supreme Court in Kelo simply recognized that the State of Connecticut had made a series of legislative choices, spurred by aggressive lobbying from developers, that allowed local officials to take with just compensation private property and then turn the land over to private economic developers.

While that is true (and shame on them), there is also the issue that the bill of rights applies to state government’s as well. The fifth amendment states:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Private development is not public use. The significance of Kelo is that the supreme court had the chance to assert that the fifth amendment means something and it did not.

The Ohio Supreme Court did it. The skinny at the Volokh’s:

We hold that although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

Update: Another Volokh (I can’t tell them apart) has a lot more.

Apparently, the biggest threat to positive urban development is the fact that people own property:

Fifty-one out of 73 parcels on the 22-acre site “exhibit one or more blight characteristics,” the study found, including buildings that are at least 50 percent vacant or are built to 60 percent or less of their allowable density. The study also noted that, before Forest City came along, 76 parties controlled the land making up the site. Such fragmented ownership, real estate developers say, is what makes large-scale private urban development difficult without government intervention.

The nerve of them, to own stuff.

Ned Ferguson, who I thought was MIA, notes that the .gov can shut down churches using eminent domain:

Churches are tax exempt, hence virtually any “use” except a church generates greater tax revenue for the government and therefore makes the property subject to seizure. See how easy that is?

He even has a sample.

George Bush (yes, that one) issued an executive order that is anti-eminent domain:

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

It has a list of exclusions but it’s a start.

Wow. First thing he’s done right in years. Via the geek and carnaby.

Update: It has a clause that kind of makes it useless. One of the Volokh’s has the skinny. Via Jon.

Saw on the news yesterday at the barber shop that the city (my the city) of Maryville was planning on using eminent domain to take some land for a school. I’ve seen nothing on Al Gore’s Internets. Anyone see anything?

In the aftermath of the Kelo ruling, it looks like the city council has voted to evict:

City officials voted Monday night to evict residents who refused to leave their riverfront homes, signaling that the end is near in an eminent domain dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

The City Council approved the action 5-2. The city attorney will now go to court to seek removal of the remaining two families and obtain the properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, a process that could take three months.

Another sad day for America and for property rights.

After the rather tame law that supposedly addresses ED abuse, we find that Nashville’s hands are bloody when it comes to property rights:

… today’s Nashville City Paper has a report on a Nashville man whose property was indeed seized by government and handed over to a private developer, short-circuiting the property owner’s own attempt to redevelop the property himself. And the property wasn’t taken for a “public use” - a new school or a road, for example - which is the nomal reason for eminent domain.

Seems to be mostly immaterial:

Why has the Kelo backlash largely failed? Sandefur blames the political power of development interests who benefit from private-to-private condemnations and the lack of a strong philosophical commitment to property rights.

Via Fun Bob.

Over at Tennessee Ticket, they tell you why it’s not all that great.

It’s also here.

The TN eminent domain is on it’s way to the governor. Not the best bill, but it’s a start.

Via AC, comes The Hammer of Truth:

The Tennessee Senate just unanamously passed an eminent domain bill. The measure is almost as effective in protecting the rights of property owners as a masturbating sterile man is effective in producing children.

Heh.

That Chattanoogan has a piece on some legislation in Tennessee to address ED concerns.

A while back, BB&T said it wouldn’t loan money for projectes taken via eminent domain. Now, a government agency is reacting:

The city’s urban renewal agency is looking to pull its $2.37 million out of BB&T because of the regional bank’s policy against loaning money for private projects that depend on eminent domain to obtain property.

Charleston Urban Renewal Authority members voted Wednesday to seek bids from other banks because they haven’t received answers from BB&T officials on the bank’s policy, said agency Director Pat Brown.

The authority has used its power to condemn property to help revitalize Charleston’s downtown. Once the property is condemned, it is sold to private developers.

In a bit of irony, it appears that actual public use isn’t the best use. In New Jersey, the Asbury Park Board of Education is getting kicked out of its offices (where they no doubt reside tax free) to make way for townhouses and condominiums. Heartless Libertarian notes:

When even government agencies aren’t safe from other government agencies rapacious appetites, it should scare everyone. This particular case should especially scare non-profit entities such as churches, who don’t pay any property taxes.

Blake has a very detail post about the Tennessee legislature’s bill to curb eminent domain abuse. He says it won’t do much.

They may not have CCW yet, but they do have a bill aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse:

Wisconsin governments can’t seize private property that isn’t blighted and hand it over to companies for redevelopment under a bill Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law Thursday.

The Republican-authored measure comes in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that held eminent domain laws allow the federal government to seize property for economic development.

The court ruled that cities may raze people’s homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The 5-4 decision gave local governments the power to seize private property in the name of increased tax revenue.

The Wisconsin bill prohibits governments - ranging from counties to state agencies to the University of Wisconsin System - from condemning property that isn’t blighted if the governments plan to convey or lease the property to a private entity.

Property can’t be considered blighted unless it has been abandoned or converted from a single dwelling into multiple units and the crime rate in or around the property is three times higher than in the rest of the city, according to the bill.

Good.

Check out Property Rights Knoxville, a blog focusing on eminent domain and other property issus in K-Town.

Terry Frank notes some polling info related to eminent domain. Most striking:

Should local governments be able to seize homes for private economic development that will produce jobs and tax revenue?

Yes: 4.63%

No: 93.57%

Sounds like near total opposition to me.

Terry Frank on the Metropulse’s recent love affair with the hideous practice of eminent domain:

Recently I asked of Bill Lyons, Director of Policy Development for the Mayor Haslam and the City of Knoxville, or if his Metro Pulse staffer wife, Gay, had written, influenced, or contributed to an editorial hit-piece in the Metro Pulse which slammed legislators who are working to protect private property rights.

It remains a possibility. But then again, maybe the editorial was written or influenced by Senior Pulse editor Barry Henderson. After all, Henderson’s wife used to hold the same position Bill Lyons does now and I could see him being sympathetic to the eminent domain argument.

Or then again, maybe the article was ordered, written, or influenced by Metro Pulse publisher and real estate developer Brian Conley.

Does Conley have an interest in any possible eminent domain seizures? I’m looking.

I’d be interested in knowing.

A good first step:

A bill that advanced this week would limit the power of cities and counties to seize private property, such as farmland, to develop industrial parks, but is less restrictive than other eminent domain legislation.

The bill would require local governments to certify the “public purpose and necessity” of seizing land. It is one of three dozen measures lawmakers have proposed on eminent domain following last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling to give a Connecticut city the authority to seize property for private development.

[snip]

Fowlkes’ bill specifies that public use “does not include private use or benefit or the indirect public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise.”

Fox 19:

An 80-year-old woman has been ordered to move out of her Clifton house after a battle with the city of Cincinnati over eminent domain.

It’s for a Good Samaritan Hospital.

CBS Dallas:

Texans voting in the republican primary this week sent a clear message to state lawmakers. 94% supported a constitutional amendment preventing the government from taking private property through eminent domain for economic purposes.

Several projects in North Texas have infuriated private property owners who feel that the government wants their land and doesn’t have to be nice about it.

The upcoming Dallas Cowboys’ stadium is one of those projects. It has claimed many houses that stood in its way.

94%. I never thought you’d get 94% of people (even Republicans) to agree on anything. But the message is clear.

Continuing the theme of all talk, no action comes news that New Mexico’s Governor vetoed an anti-eminent domain bill:

Governor Richardson has vetoed eminent domain legislation.

The measure was intended to prevent state and local governments from using their powers to take property for private development projects.

Richardson said yesterday a number of community officials opposed the measure.

He says the legislation would bring New Mexicans more harm than good.

Well, unless they own property.

An anti-eminent domain bill was overwhelmingly defeated in Missouri:

The House overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would have banned the use of eminent domain for taxpayer-funded developments by private developers.

By a vote of 129-26, the House rejected the amendment, which had been offered to a broader bill imposing restrictions on a program that provides tax breaks for private developers, called tax increment financing.

Such a bill may be useful in defeating land grabs like this one:

Lawsuits were filed Tuesday aimed at stopping an affluent suburban village from using the legal concept of eminent domain to take over a privately owned golf course.

“This proposed condemnation may be the most extreme abuse of eminent domain in the country,” said John Wilson, a Deepdale Golf Club member named as a plaintiff.

The village’s mayor said the federal and state lawsuit were a “pre-emptive strike” and no decision has been made on whether to proceed with a takeover of Deepdale, considered one of the finest golf courses in the country.

[snip]

But in North Hills _ a 2.8 square mile community of 1,800 residents on Long Island’s “gold coast,” where housing prices begin in the millions _ members of the Deepdale Club are rallying to save their 175-acre facility from being taken by village officials.

The federal suit questions the village’s right to seize the property through eminent domain; the state case challenges the village’s alleged abuse of zoning law to cut secret deals with private developers.

I tend to doubt a golf course where houses sell in the millions could be considered blighted under any reasonable measure.

Unless you want to debate what exactly that just compensation is:

When Brian Adamek bought a couple hundred acres of rich black land soil from his father two years ago, he says he was planning for his future and the future of his wife and 3-month-old son.

But his dreams may be dashed if the city follows through with its plan to expand a nearby landfill by using its power to condemn his property for what city officials consider the greatest public good.

[snip]

City officials approached Adamek about his property a year and a half ago, offering $630 an acre for land he said he bought for $730 an acre from his father just a few months prior. Failure to accept that offer, Adamek said he was told, could mean he could get absolutely nothing for it should the city move forward with the authority enabled to them under the powers of eminent domain.

Public good is not public use. And the threat of taking the land and not paying seems a bit of an overreach.