In Utah:
Reporting from Salt Lake City – Long frustrated by Washington’s control over much of their state, Utah legislators are proposing a novel way to deal with federal land — seize it and develop it.
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development.
Heh.
Engelking, 27, aimed to hunt deer Wednesday morning when he noticed a pipeline crew on his land. He hopped on his ATV and told workers they had no right to be on his property because he had received no compensation from Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. for an easement.
Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.
But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser drawn.
“He ordered me to ‘get down on the ground now!’ And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing,” Engelking said.
The property all the hubbub was about is still vacant. And empty. People lost their homes for nothing. Bad case law established for nothing. City spent $78M for nothing. More at the WSJ.
Government to condemn land for Flight 93 memorial
The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said.
In a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims’ families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land.
Ben notes that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act was opposed by virtually every property rights group.
By seizing land:
Relatives of those who died aboard United Airlines Flight 93 want the Bush Administration to seize the land needed for a memorial where the plane crashed in western Pennsylvania during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Great way to honor their memories.
WASILLA, Alaska — The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.
The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin’s legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.
…snip…
Ms. Palin marched ahead, making the public case for a sales-tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue to pay for the sports center, which was to feature a running track, basketball courts and a hockey rink. At the time, the city’s annual budget was about $20 million. In a March 2002 referendum, residents approved the mayor’s plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build.
Later that year, Ms. Palin’s final one as mayor, the federal judge reversed his own decision and ruled that the property rightfully belonged to Mr. Lundgren. Wasilla had never signed the proper papers, the court ruled.
Mr. Lundgren said he had offered to give smaller parcels to the city free of charge, but the city held out for a larger tract. The former chief of the city finance department, Ted Leonard, says he doesn’t recall such an offer.
After Ms. Palin left office, the city decided to take 80 acres of Mr. Lundgren’s property through eminent domain. An Alaska court confirmed the city’s right to do so and ordered that an arbitrator determine the appropriate price.
Last year, the arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the 80-acre parcel, far more than the $126,000 Wasilla originally thought it would pay for a piece of land 65 acres larger. The arbitrator also determined that the city owed Mr. Lundgren $336,000 in interest. Wasilla’s legal bill since the eminent domain action has come to roughly $250,000 so far, according to Mr. Klinkner, the city attorney.
Never mind the jumped-gun and the legal mess and eminent domain abuse that ensued: championing a nearly $15 million dollar public spending project for a rec center for a town of 9,000? That’s about $1,633 per resident: not exactly what I think of when I think of “small government” and “fiscal responsibility.”
I was ridiculed on this site earlier in the week for claiming that Palin was “just another politician.”
Massive public spending projects, hiring lobbyists to win earmarks for her town, for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it — laugh all you want, but it sure looks like politics as usual to me.
H/T: Obsidian Wings
Three years after Kelo and what happened: Nothing.
South Carolina passes sweeping reciprocity law.
Even the idiots at Gun Guys have gotten the memo that they’re going to lose. Man, the anti-gunners get their marching orders out across all their astroturf outlets pretty quickly. It’s like they’re all working together. Or, you know, there’s just not many of them.
Going after ammo in Cali. Only 50 rounds a month? I shot six times that on Tuesday.
Judge rules no guns sign violates state law and is pretty fucking stupid. Ok, he didn’t actually rule the sign was pretty fucking stupid but, seriously, he should have.
First, Red’s Trading Post was being investigated for errors in firearms transactions. Said investigation was, well, dubious at best and what we’ve come to expect from ATF. Now, they’ve gone and had the audacity to own land where a future city hall needs to be.
This is amusing:
City officials say the deal is legal, though they acknowledge that they had to work around state law that bars urban renewal board members from benefiting from the projects they oversee.
Because laws are for little people.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
“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.
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 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.”
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.
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.
It might be the most popular idea in the Tennessee General Assembly this session.
Lawmakers from both parties have introduced a flurry of bills to restrict government from using eminent domain to seize property and turn it over to private developers.
There have been 59 bills filed to limit the use of eminent domain – dozens each in the House and the Senate, submitted by both Democrats and Republicans.
Lawmakers say the issue is one of the first things their constituents want to talk about, and there’s broad support for the idea across parties and interest groups.
Good to see pressure put on them.
“In Tennessee, property rights almost rise to the level of being sacred,” said Rep. Joe Fowlkes, D-Cornersville, vice chairman of a joint committee studying eminent domain. “When people think that their private property might be taken from them and given to another person, it stirs them up.”
I don’t think it’s almost, I think it is.
It’s been a year since the Supreme Court ruled on Kelo, and her house is still there.
In a rare display of unanimity that cuts across partisan and geographic lines, lawmakers in virtually every statehouse across the country are advancing bills and constitutional amendments to limit use of the government’s power of eminent domain to seize private property for economic development purposes.
The measures are in direct response to the United States Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision last June in a landmark property rights case from Connecticut, upholding the authority of the City of New London to condemn homes in an aging neighborhood to make way for a private development of offices, condominiums and a hotel. It was a decision that one justice, who had written for the majority, later all but apologized for.
The reaction from the states was swift and heated. Within weeks of the court’s decision, Texas, Alabama and Delaware passed bills by overwhelming bipartisan margins limiting the right of local governments to seize property and turn it over to private developers. Since then, lawmakers in three dozen other states have proposed similar restrictions and more are on the way, according to experts who track the issue.
You can’t make this stuff up:
Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson wants to dispel “innacuracies (sic) and stereotypes” about the use of eminent domain for economic development, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in last year’s notorious Kelo v. New London decision. Last fall Peterson told a Senate subcommittee that when the government threatens to condemn people’s property because it thinks someone else can make better use of it, “a majority of the time, most people agree to sell.”
Well, yeah, under the threat of a boot to the throat, most folks would. More:
“Cities use eminent domain most often as a negotiating tool with property owners,” explained Peterson, who was speaking for the National League of Cities. “Just having the tool available makes it possible to negotiate with landowners.” Sure it does—in the same way just having a gun available makes it possible for a bank robber to negotiate with a teller.
Ouch.
“This would be the end of a dream for a lot of people,” Frenchtown resident Kim Vest told the St. Charles City Council Tuesday night.
And what, you may ask, is Kim Vest talking about. Well, she’s talking about a bill that would restrict abuse of eminent domain:
A group of Frenchtown residents say a proposal to restrict the city’s use of eminent domain would cripple their efforts to redevelop rundown areas of the historic neighborhood.
How about, say, someone’s dream to want to keep their land or home?
After Kelo, there were quite a few local/state governments who had measures to reel in eminent domain abuse. Like these recent examples:
The Senate voted 23-to-five today a resolution asking voters to enact a law creating a new right to trial by jury on whether a condemnation by the state or a local government is for a public use and therefore allowed under state law.
The Senate also approved a bill to declare that a projected increase in tax revenue or other economic benefit doesn’t qualify as a public use for which eminent domain can be used.
and:
Governor Sonny Perdue said, “The government’s awesome power of eminent domain should be used sparingly, and never abused for private profit.”
The Governor also proposed a constitutional amendment rhat (sic) would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development or to boost tax revenue. The changes in law will likely be too late, however, to block Phoebe from seizing the 93 year old woman’s house.
But to date, I really know of no place where such a law has passed. Anyone?
Under a plan presented to the City Council Monday night, four people whose homes were seized for a private development would be allowed to stay. The city would own their properties and the residents would have to pay the city to live there.
Doesn’t this sort of prove that the home owners and the development can, in fact, each get what they want? And, of course, the home owners already pay the city to live there through property taxes. Looks to me like they know they did wrong and are trying to make up for it while saving a bit of face and still exerting unnecessary power.
Let the homeowners stay. And let them keep their homes.
A city agency violated the separation of church and state when it seized a woman’s home to help a religious group build a private school in a blighted Philadelphia neighborhood, a state appeals court ruled Monday.
Yeah, forget about all that pesky fifth amendment stuff.
ABC reports that 40 states and Congress are looking at eminent domain in a post Kelo world:
Echoes of the debate are happening across the country, after a U.S. Supreme Court decision brought new attention to governments’ ability to seize property through the tool of eminent domain. Some 40 states are re-examining their laws with action in Congress, too after the court’s unpopular ruling.
Here’s hoping something gets done.
BB&T, a bank that operates locally, says:
BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.
The commercial lending policy change comes in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, a controversial Supreme Court decision in June that said governments can seize personal property to make room for private development projects.
The court’s ruling cleared the way for an expansion of eminent domain authority historically used primarily for utilities, rights of way and other public facilities.
“The idea that a citizen’s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it’s just plain wrong,” said BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison.
“One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won’t help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership.”
Reward good behavior. Seriously. I may just have to switch my banking needs to BB&T. That is awesome. Hats off to them.
In a move supported by Gov. Don Carcieri, the state Economic Development Corporation will discontinue using eminent domain to take people’s property and give them to private developers for economic development.
The policy change came in a vote by the EDC’s board on Monday.
“We’re trying to send a clear message that when it’s owner-occupied we’re respecting those rights,” said Carcieri, who’s chairman of the EDC. He asked the agency last year to revise its eminent domain policy that would protect Rhode Islanders’ homes from eminent domain condemnations for office buildings, hotels and other private uses. Carcieri said earlier this month that he plans to introduce legislation to prevent the use of eminent domain for economic development statewide.
The City of Knoxville wants to annex the Disc Exchange:
For the past 16 years or so, the city has tried to annex the property but store owner Alan Miller has been fighting it.
Miller, who also has the Chapman Highway Disc Exchange in the city, says there’s no difference in the services he receives, such as water, sewer and police and fire protection.
Miller doesn’t think he should pay more taxes for the same level of service. That’s why he’s been fighting the annexation in court.
It’s not about services, it’s about tax dollars.
Rhymes with Right, on a case where just compensation of 105 acres taken via eminent domain was $1, reports:
the judge allowed no testimony on the value of the land — and then awarded an absurdly low value because there was no evidence in support of the land’s value. Never mind that we know that the land was considered to be worth at least $1.9 million by the special commission. And she added insult to injury by ordering the victim of her obscene ruling to pay back all money he received with interest, plus legal fees to the publicly-owned Port — which means he is paying the Port for the privilege of having his land stolen.
Abysmal. Dan has more. I’m not one to generally advocate violence. But in this case, I’d make an exception. Judge, tar, feathers, some assembly required.
Chris highlights what is sure to be the next big test case for post-Kelo eminent domain proceedings:
Note here that from the description, it sounds like there may not be much actual “blight”. Instead, it seems “deteriorating” here actually means that a progressive number of households were simply swayed to sell-out to the developer.
It’s not actually blighted but it will be. Just like everything will someday be historic (unless you tear it down and rebuild regularly), eventually everything deteriorates. Seems like they may grease the wheels so that everything can be taken. For your own good, of course. And I’m not certain that it’s deteriorated just because some people have sold out.
Americans remain strongly committed to protecting private property from the possibility of unjust seizure, according to the results of a nationwide survey released today by the American Farm Bureau Federation during the organization’s annual convention.
The poll shows, regardless of geographical, partisan and other demographic differences, Americans are unified nearly 2-to-1 against government use of eminent domain to take private property, except in limited circumstances such as when the public at large would clearly benefit from a new road, electric utility or similar project.
Likewise, 83 percent of Americans oppose the use of eminent domain to further private development initiatives. Seizure for private development was the issue at the heart of the Kelo v. New London, Conn., case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. That case made national headlines when the high court ruled that property could be taken from one landowner to advance the economic development efforts of another private entity.
It’s a good thing so many oppose it. Maybe politicos and talking heads will pay attention.
Positive Liberty’s Timothy Sandefur notes that the backlash of Kelo hasn’t accomplished much so far:
In the months after the Kelo decision was announced there was much talk of a “backlash” in the states. Since state law can provide greater protections to people than federal law does, people hoped to change state law to protect themselves from eminent domain abuse. But, as I argue in a forthcoming paper (which will be posted on SSRN shortly), the backlash so far has accomplished little.
He has a lot more.
In Knoxville, Councilman Steve Hall proposed a charter amendment that would have required a seven-vote majority from the nine-member board to approve any and all condemnations by the city. The measure was defeated by a vote of 1-8:
Councilman Steve Hall, the measure’s sole sponsor, had argued that city agencies that would use such power, namely Knoxville’s Community Development Corp., are not elected bodies and do not answer directly to voters.
He also cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, Conn., which upheld that city’s use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development.
“I can perceive that municipalities all over the country will start using eminent domain more frequently for the purpose of economic development,” said Hall, the only member to vote in favor of the change. “All we’re doing is giving the citizens of Knoxville the opportunity to decide how they want to be governed.”
Good for Steve Hall. Bad for Knoxvillians.
No bulldozers, no evictions. The residents are still there. And quite confident they’ll stay:
Even though the holdouts lost their case, and the development that would displace them finally seems free to go forward, construction has not begun, and some elements of the project have been effectively paralyzed since the court ruling prompted a political outcry.
“I felt relaxed enough to get my checkbook out and put the new roof on,” said Mr. Von Winkle, who owns three buildings with a total of 12 occupied apartments in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood by the Thames River, where the city was sued for claiming 15 properties through eminent domain.
Ms. Kelo, also among the handful of holdouts, said, “We still have hope that we’ll get to keep our homes.”
Good. I think the pressure from this hideous ruling may have done more to energize the issue than a good ruling would have. I’d still have preferred the latter. But it’s something.
BizzyBlog has a run down of recent events. Most recently:
After a campaign focusing on rising taxes and the eminent domain controversy, New London voters have sliced the Democrats’ City Council majority from three to one.
The upstart One New London Party won two council seats, losing a third seat by only 19 votes. The new seven-member council will consist of four Democrats, one Republican, and two aldermen from One New London.
Charging that the Supreme Court undermined one of the pillars of American society, the House took up legislation Thursday to block court-sanctioned seizings of people’s homes for use by private developers.
The bill, headed toward easy passage with bipartisan support, would withhold federal funds from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.
I wonder if that would include pork?
Gov. Rick Perry ceremonially signed a new property rights law Monday in Waco, saying Texas will protect homeowners from losing land to private economic development projects.
The law, which the Legislature passed in August in response to a controversial June U.S. Supreme Court decision, restricts a governmental body’s power of eminent domain to seize private property.
“We believe government should not encroach upon the private property rights unless there is an eminent public need,” Perry said. “Eminent domain for public use is a necessary power. Eminent domain for private use is a great threat.”
Saying he and the Legislature attempted “to close a door the Supreme Court jarred open,” Perry received a standing ovation from more than 60 people at the Waco Association of Realtors office, which supported the legislation.
The Kelo story gets a bit more interesting:
The city council has voted to sever ties with the quasi-public development authority at the center of a national debate over eminent domain powers.
The council voted 6-0 Monday night to revoke the designation of the New London Development Corp. as the city’s “implementing agency” for its Fort Trumbull development. The agency has guided the $73 million state-funded project since its inception in 1998.
As for why, it seems the development corporation acted to evict some residents after the state asked them to hold off while they contemplate changes to the law. That last bit is some good news.
Wow. It’s like local governments have no fear of taking property:
The District of Columbia plans to use eminent domain to acquire land for the Washington Nationals ballpark.
The Washington Times reports 10 of the 23 landowners affected have not responded to purchase offers.
The city notified landowners in April they must be off the 21-acre site by Dec. 31. Construction of a new stadium is scheduled to begin in March with completion expected by the beginning of the 2008 baseball season.
Ravenwood notes a particularly fishy case in New Jersey:
Segal said he met with Cryan, who is head of the township’s Democratic Party, and other local officials “scores of times” over the past five years to discuss the project. He claims the talks turned adversarial after he rejected proposals to work with various developers they proposed.
On May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal’s land through eminent domain and name its own developer.
“They want to steal my land,” Segal said. “What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?”
So, eminent domain is now being abused to developer shop.
John Cole rounds up other post-Kelo cases, including confiscation to build a Dallas Cowboy Stadium. How is that public use? He also has some good news from other states, similar to my list here.
A few interesting eminent domain issues since the Kelo decision:
First, heh.
Bubba (sorry, but R. Neal doesn’t quite roll off the keyboard yet) details some of TVA’s eminent domain dealings past and present:
As part of the great Rural Electrification of the 1930s under FDR, the Tennessee Valley Authority was founded to control flooding, generate power, and improve the lives and welfare of the people in the valley.
Now a bureaucratic behemoth and a government within a government with its own police force and no elected officials, TVA stomps around the valley doing pretty much whatever it wants for the benefit of TVA and a few rich people.
In 1964, TVA acquired – by eminent domain – 179 miles of shoreline to create the 10,370 acre Nickajack Lake near Chattanooga in the scenic Tennessee River Gorge, the “Grand Canyon of Tennessee.” As with all TVA reservoir projects, people were removed from their homes and farms, by force if necessary, and paid a token sum for their land and their troubles.
In the latest example of TVA hubris, land taken from 82 families by eminent domain for Nickajack Lake was “auctioned” to a real estate developer for a $450 million upscale lakefront gated community development:
One problem is only one bidder was at the auction.
And in Florida:
Officials of a poor, predominantly black Florida town plan to relocate about 6,000 residents to make room for a billion-dollar yachting and housing complex.
The coastal community of Rivera Beach in Palm Beach County may use eminent domain, if necessary, to claim 400 acres of land for the project, The Washington Times reported Monday.
“This is a community that’s in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year,” Mayor Michael Brown said. “If we don’t use this power, cities will die.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld the use of eminent domain for economic purposes, ruling against a group of New London, Conn., homeowners fighting a proposed corporate development.
The City Council last week chose a New Jersey-based developer, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC, to oversee the project, which is expected to displace 2,000 houses.
So, they are displacing (a nice term for bought or booted out) 2000 folks for a yacht club.
Pun of the day goes to Goldstein with: Kelo-ing me softly.
Tar and feathers come to mind.
Despite promises to abide by a moratorium on eminent domain takings, the city agency in charge of development has sent notices to residents in Fort Trumbull ordering them to leave by the beginning of December.
And it gets better:
According to a copy of the eviction notice obtained by the Journal Inquirer, residents are being required not only to leave by Dec. 8 at the latest, but also to pay $600 a month to the NLDC in the interim.
Nothing some tar and feathers wouldn’t stop.
Church wants immigrant’s property via ‘eminent domain’
Surely, that would annoy the staunchest of ED supporters?
One of St. Louis’ most colorful political careers could come to an end later this month.
St. Louis Alderman Thomas E. Bauer is facing a recall effort. Voters will decide whether to keep Bauer on September 20th.
Bauer’s critics have attacked him for his support of a plan to force several property owners in the Dogtown neighborhood to make way for a gas station and convenience store. Residents say they feel betrayed by Bauer and that the booming growth of the area is changing its inner-city charm.
Good. Where do I contribute?
In response to this post, a couple of people have added a few more bits of good news. For example, one commentator says Alabama passed legislation that specifically prohibited the new and expanded “public purposes” they created in Kelo.
And Knox County Law Director Mike Moyers writes (say, Knox County government types are reading? – spooky):
Just thought you would like to know that in Knox County, Tennessee we have passed an ordinance that would require a supermajority (2/3) of the County Commission to approve the use of eminent domain where the intent and effect is to deprive any private person, corporation or entity of real property and transfer that property to any other private person, corporation or entity.
That may not sound like much, but the Commission recently (but before the Kelo controversy) was unable to agree to condemn a small strip of land from a cattle stockyard to serve as an access for a local county-owned refuse and recycling center. Requiring a two-thirds majority for a Kelo-style condemnation effectively removes such a condemnation from the realm of possibility, unless the need and public desire for such is absolutely overwhelming.
It doesn’t go far enough in that such takings should be outright banned but it is a start. So, hats off to Knox County.
Update: Mr. Moyers emailed me a copy of the ordinance, which states:
SECTION 1: No exercise of the power of eminent domain by Knox County which has the intent and effect of transferring ownership of any interest in real property from any private individual, entity or corporation to any other private individual, entity or corporation shall be undertaken unless such exercise of the eminent domain power is first approved by a minimum two thirds majority vote of the membership of the Knox County Commission.
SECTION 2: Exercise of the eminent domain power for acquisition of property which does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance may be authorized by vote of a simple majority of the membership of the County Commission, provided that if any property so acquired is proposed to be sold to any private individual, entity or corporation other than the original owner within three years of said property’s acquisition, authorization of such sale shall require approval by a two-thirds majority of the County Commission.
SECTION 3: Exercise of the eminent domain power of Knox County solely for the purpose of building, expanding or improving Knox County public roads shall be deemed to have been approved and authorized by the Knox County Commission when the Commission appropriates such funds as are necessary for such road construction, expansion or improvement or takes such other action as evidences the Commission’s approval of such road construction, expansion or improvement.
SECTION 4: Use of the county’s eminent domain powers for the purpose of development of industrial parks pursuant to the Tennessee Industrial Park Act, TCA §13-16-201, et seq., shall require the approval of a simple majority of the membership of the Knox County Commission
or maybe not. I’ve not done a lot of Eminent Domain blogging since the SCOTUS Kelo ruling. That’s mostly because it depresses me at this point. However, there is some good news. It is that battling eminent domain abuse is popping up all over:
In Connecticut:
The Zoning Commission and Board of Selectmen are asking the public to support the proposed ordinance, which requires that property to be taken by eminent domain meet one of the following criteria:
The property is to be owned by the town or an agency of the town, and is to be used or set aside for one or more public facilities, such as, but not limited to, streets, bridges, parkways, sidewalks, rights of way, or other public ways, parks, playgrounds, schools, or public sewer, water or waste disposal or transfer facilities.
The property is to be owned by the town and set aside for permanent open space or drainage or erosion control facilities.
The property poses a danger to public health or safety as a result of physical deterioration, pollution or contamination, and is to be taken by the town for the purpose of remediating such conditions or minimizing danger to the public.
In Missouri:
The governor created the Eminent Domain Task Force after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that government can use eminent domain for economic development. Blunt described the decision at the time as a “terrible ruling.”
In Texas:
Rep. Lois W. Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) praised a measure to restrict government’s power of eminent domain, which won legislative approval and is now headed to the desk of Gov. Rick Perry.
The House version of the Senate bill, joint authored by Kolkhorst with Rep. Beverly Wooley (R-Houston) and Rep. Frank Corte (R-San Antonio), included an amendment by Kolkhorst which added additional limits to state government’s power of eminent domain, including tighter restrictions over state transportation projects in relation to ancillary facilities.
The legislation was passed in order to bar government from seizing land strictly for commercial purposes. Perry, who added the eminent domain issue to the agenda of the special session on school finance, has the power to sign or veto legislation, or to allow it to become law without his signature.
In New Jersey (yes, that New Jersey):
The Borough Council will likely vote tonight to ask residents in November whether to impose stricter limits on the use of eminent domain than allowed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Mayor Steve Lonegan proposed the ballot question in response to the top court’s June ruling that allows New London, Conn., to raze homes for private development because it would provide an economic benefit to the town.
In New York (yes, that New York):
A City Council member of Brooklyn, Letitia James, introduced legislation yesterday that would bar city funds from going toward projects that use eminent domain to transfer property from one private landowner to another.
In California (ayup):
State lawmakers launched an effort Wednesday to limit the ability of local government to take private property for private developers’ benefit.
Lawmakers have proposed several bills to try to limit the ability of governments to take property in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding that ability in a Connecticut case.
In its earliest form, HB 1063 would have barred local and state entities from condemning private property and then turning it over to private developers for commercial use.
In New Hampshire:
Two panels — one in the House and one in the Senate — are grappling with the issue of eminent domain in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the taking of private land for private development.
In Wisconsin:
In Madison, state Rep. Jeffrey Wood (R-Chippewa Falls) and state Sen. David Zien (R-Eau Claire) are drafting a bill to limit the use of eminent domain.
City commissioners have voted unanimously to consider an ordinance that would limit the city’s power to seize private property for economic development.
The Board of Aldermen joined a growing number of government bodies Tuesday in passing a resolution opposing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain and saying the town will not employ eminent domain outside of a true “public use” context.
Johnson City Commissioner Phil Roe says the Supreme Court’s ruling scares him to death, especially since it only takes three votes to condemn a home here.
“I want to get that power taken away from us as fast as they can do it,” Roe said.
Capehart said Republican leaders in the state Legislature are currently working on legislation to curb eminent domain powers and that “very soon” they will have a bill or constitutional amendment to present to the Legislature. He also said that this initial petition was part of a statewide petition drive by the West Virginia Republican Party, and that petition forms could be found on the party Web site.
State lawmakers to take up the issue this fall
Farm groups and other property rights advocates are pushing lawmakers to protect residents from local governments that want to seize land in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this summer.
We have been heard!
You know, there are very few instances that make me think someone should be taken out to the woodshed and have the absolute Hell beaten out of them. However, this is one:
“It’s a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.”
Fight them and they will make you pay. I hope Bob Krumm is right:
Kelo v. New London is about to become the new Roe v. Wade—a Supreme Court decision that ignites a firestorm of protest. Only with Kelo, there’s no one running to defend the land-grabbing decision.
Rep. Campfield has a piece in the local newspaper regarding protections from eminent domain abuse.
In 2001 on September 11th there was a horrific attack on our country. It took the legislature a short 43 days to pass the patriot act. A bill that is complex in it’s abilities to remove basic rights.
In 2005 on June 21st the Supreme jerks court decided that our rights to property was less important then a Wal-Mart. Politicians stood in unison and declared that they would pass laws to protect our homes. In the resulting 51 days exactly one state, Alabama, has passed a bill protecting the property rights of their citizens.
Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.
I get the feeling we are being left at the alter here. They promise a lot but have no carry through. Maybe they are trying to wait us out. How hard is it to pass a law that almost all politicians have come out in support of and that most people support?
Have you called your Tennessee representative and asked why a bill has not been passed? Here are the needed links to contact your representative in the state government.
Tennessee House
Tennessee Senate
Do not email. Call them. Let their office hear your voice.
If you do not contact them now, then you have no right to complain when they come for your house later. It’s that simple.
Update: This quote says a lot
Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama Legislature
They called a special session to deal with this. why isn’t our politicians doing the same?
Update 2: Seems that some are calling for a special session of sorts.
It took uncommon courage and compassion for state Sen. Doug Jackson to call for a special legislative session on TennCare.
Stopping the Tenncare cuts will buy more votes then the property rights bill I guess.
In what is likely to become a regular act of social resistance another Supreme Court Judge is going to lose some land, if the Libertarian party gets it’s way.
PLAINFIELD, N.H. (AP) – Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain have proposed seizing Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.
The state’s Libertarian Party is trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Breyer’s 167-acre property for a “Constitution Park” with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.
Makes a man almost feel sorry for the modern plight of the soon to be homeless.
And it’s a pretty bad one too:
“The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is ‘okay’ to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is,” Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.
Dean’s reference to the “right-wing” court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court – Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the fourth dissenter.
The court’s liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.
The Metropulse penned a crap editorial about the Kelo decision. Rich rips Conley a new one for it.
Regarding the bid to take Justice Souter’s home in order to put a hotel there, Kira Zalan reports:
A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.
Governments rarely take homes from rich dudes with political pull.
Update: I will predict her blog will be popular soon. Hopefully, it won’t end with the same result last time I made such a prediction.
Harold Ford, Jr. kinda, sorta almost gets it right:
I support periodic review of any restrictions on the freedoms and rights of Tennesseans and Americans alike. It is unnecessarily intrusive to ask Americans to forfeit rights and freedoms indefinitely. I took the conservative approach and voted against this indefinite and liberal overreach by the federal government into our private lives.
Actually, it is unconstitutional to suspend our rights in general, forget intrusive. He notes he did not support permanently expanding the PATRIOT Act.
Update: Too bad he gets one completely wrong:
The community-rights-trump-individual-rights crowd cheered the [Kelo] decision. “We have a lot of properties in my city [Memphis],” said Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., ” . . . that are crying out for development. . . . I’ve always been one to believe that individual rights is a big thing [but] there is some real value to this
With the fact that those evil libertarian minded people are trying to seize Judge Souter’s home you would feel that the good folks in the town he lives in would rally behind him and try to protect his homestead.
Nope.
Town Clerk Evelyn Connor has had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund. A rival proposal from townspeople would turn Souter’s land into a park commemorating the U.S. Constitution.
You have to know you messed up when your own neighbors turn against you.
The Castle Coalition will keep you up to date on the eminent domain fight with their Hands Off My Home Campaign.
Via Blake, we learn that the state of Connecticut is stepping in to stop eminent domain seizures:
“We need to let the public know we will address the Supreme Court ruling in a way that will produce legislation that ensures fairness and balance,” state Senate president pro tem Donald E. Williams Jr. said in a statement. “In the meantime, municipalities should know that this effort is underway so there is no confusion as we go forward.” House Speaker James Amann said in a separate statement: “One thing is certain — Connecticut’s eminent domain laws will be changing and our municipalities should put any property takeover plans on hold immediately.”
Excellent.
Ford flip-flops on Kelo. Good. In other news, I heard on the radio that a local rep is looking to pass a law that states when a government takes land in an eminent domain case, that the local government should pay three times the market value of that land. Excellent!
Michael Silence reports that Knox County Commission this month will consider an ordinance requiring a two-thirds vote for the 19-member body to condemn land for “economic development.” It’s a start but how about eliminating taking private property from one person to give to another completely?
The House passed a bill that would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall..
At the bottom of the article is this:
In the roll call on the House amendment, 192 Republicans voted for and 31 against, with 39 Democrats voting for and 157 against. The lone independent, Rep. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), voted against.
The Democrats voted overwhelmingly against. This will be another political issue that they will lose on. Smijer is spot on:
This is an issue for Democrats, because the abuse in Kelo abuse represents the benefit of the rich and powerful at the expense of the unempowered.
Let’s all get on the right side of this thing.
Locally, Stacey Campfield notes that many local legislators are drafting their own anti-eminent domain bills. Good.
More states are looking into protections and eight states already have such protections in place:
At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.
And Senate candidate and local Rep. Beth Harwell has come out against Kelo.
The Lost Liberty Hotel is taking reservations. Many people making such a pledge would definitely contribute to the local economy and promote economic development.
Radley rounds up cities pouncing on the Kelo decision and snatching up the primo property. Of note:
Memphis, Tenn. — The Riverfront Development Corp. is planning a massive, 5-mile development effort, including the use of eminent domain to claim a four-block section from the current owners for a mixed-use development. “[Kelo] definitely gives the city more tools in its tool box for dealing with the legal issues surrounding that piece of property,” RDC president Benny Lendermon told the Commercial Appeal.
Memphis? That might explain something.
Heh.
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
I had hoped that, if nothing else, Kelo would serve as a wake up call to everyone regarding just how too-big-for-their-britches the .gov had become. It seems some are getting the message. However, some are pouncing:
Ravenwood reports that Freeport is already drawing up papers and going shopping and that DC is too.
Radley has a round up of other governments pouncing on other people’s property.
Quite depressing.
And I think this is the right idea.
However, the ray of sunshine is that politicians are waking up and realizing that this issue is important to people. Donald Sensing thinks a draft state constitutional amendment is a good start. I feel obligated to point out that the fifth amendment did not stop the Supreme Court.
First, compliments to Bill Hobbs for getting responses from local politicos. Here’s some:
State Senate Candidate Ed Bryant, in a blog interview at Bill Hobbs blog, responds to Kelo:
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London takes a radical turn on the important issue of private property rights. The ruling is a blow to our Constitution’s 5th Amendment, and I believe it is devastating to private property rights. The court got it wrong!
Excellent. Also, Hobbs posted Hilleary’s response and he is against it as well. Kurita is also against. Good. SayUncle applauds these three.
Ford, however, has just ended his political career:
“I’ve always believed individual rights are a big thing….. but, I find value in the court’s decision. As long as people are compensated fairly, I can appreciate the decision. Certain areas in our state are crying for development, if this decision helps – it’s a positive.”
I don’t think you believe individual rights are a big thing at all. On the national level, Eugene Volokh notes that Senator Cornyn has a bill that would limit takings, though that limit would be rather modest in that it affects Eminent Domain exercised using federal funds.
Update: Politicos in Alaska are moving to limit Eminent Domain there.
I think, instead of sending lawyers, guns and money; someone needs to head to New London with a truckload of spotted owls, snail darters, and bald eagles . Once you turn them loose, all construction there would stop immediately. Thoughts?
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
blog advertising is good for you
You are currently browsing the archives for the Eminent Domain category.
Powered by
WordPress
Theme provided by Robb Allen
1.391 seconds.
