Some reflections, reactions and fall out.

I went home last night, finished off a bottle of Scotch and had a few beers. I sat in my backyard on my comfortable 0.6 acres in the country, looked at my fence (which is only symbolic at this point), looked at Junior’s play-set, looked at the 12 neighbors’ houses I could see from the backyard, and watched my little girl play in her kiddie pool. And it occurred to me that all mine is only all mine until some bureaucrat decides he wants it for any reason whatsoever. Same for those neighbors. I’ve long held that we don’t actually own property any way, we just have an indefinite lease from the state in the form of property taxes. Now, even that lease agreement is null and void.

Also, taxes used to fund things for public use. Now public use is going to fund taxes. There are many municipalities who were waiting on this ruling. They just got the go ahead from the highest level to take whatever they want for whatever reason they want. (You can peruse many of these cases here).

Now, to address some comments made around the blogs and that I got by email on my emotional state as, just to use one example, impassioned if not analytical:

I’ve been covering Kelo for almost a year. I’ve dedicated a lot pixels and some money to the cause. I’ve also been covering eminent domain for quite a while. I had a lot invested in this subject emotionally and am not some Johnnie come lately on the issue. And I’m angry but mostly sad. It takes a real man to weep for his nation.

Also, to my gunblogger buddies who are stating it’s time to hoist the black flag, quoting Jefferson, and calling for revolution: Put up or shut up. Unless you’re on your way to Connecticut right now, the rhetoric will do more harm than good. Actually, being on your way to Connecticut will probably do more harm than good. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate or understand the sentiment, but the fact is that it’s not going to happen and if it did happen, it wouldn’t work. People will shake their heads, nay-say, and bitch but nothing will be done when the bulldozers level Suzette Kelo’s home. People won’t even defend their dogs when the state comes to take them by force. Sure, I made a half-hearted comment about sending guns to Connecticut but its pointless because I can’t send them balls.

Folks can entertain these fantasies of a group of freedom fighters engaging the bureaucratic machine but you will lose. You will die or be imprisoned. Period. The cause needs you to be alive and free not in jail. The fight isn’t over, it just got local. We need to press local and state officials to pass laws that restrict eminent domain. That’s the way you win this one. And it will be a long haul that will probably take decades. Some bills have already received support of legislators, like this one. Note to The Rep: It’s public use not public good.

This notion kicked around that we need another Constitutional amendment to limit governments’ abilities to seize property is kind of a waste. We had that in the fifth amendment. Fat lot of good it did.

Unfucking the Supreme Court needs to be everyone’s priority. And, since everyone else is politicizing this decision, it’s my turn. The more conservative justices voted correctly on this case (as they did on Raich). Hats off to them. The liberal and supposed moderates shredded the constitution. Consider this my official withdrawal from the Coalition of the Chillin’. No, the world didn’t end on May 23, 2005 but exactly one month later property rights did. The US needs judges who follow the Constitution, not judges who act like it’s a minor inconvenience. We have a lot to do to fix this and this isn’t the time to be fucking around.

Update: On further reflection, it appears to be generally a bad policy to challenge any law with which we libertarianish folks disagree, even though we are right. We keep getting shot down when we take it all the way to the highest court in the land. Act locally.

Update 2: Dear Lord, do we really need to fear challenging the law of the land. Quite depressing.

I’m so angry about Kelo I can hardly see straight. I’ll try to write something more coherent down the road. But I’m looking out on my backyard — a good .15 acres of weeds (since my house is pretty far up on the .31 acre lot) — and I can’t help but thinking:

What’s to stop a city from deciding that my 1949 house, built on 1/3 acre lots, wouldn’t be better turned into townhomes at 9-to-an-acre? If public use is served simply by raising tax revenue, what’s better for society? One $575K house with a backyard which is mostly weeds right now? Or three $500K townhouses, making sure it gets put to “public” use in the form of cranking out property taxes?

What’s to stop these bastards?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Oh. That’s right. Nothing.

Bastards. Complete Fucking Bastards.

Update: Today, I am ashamed of my country, my government, and the legal system (we don’t have a justice system). This is some scary stuff, folks. Freedom died a bit more. I honestly went to the parking lot, sat in the car and wiped tears from my eyes. Anger turned to sadness.

Property rights (like states’ rights) are officially dead in this country. SCOTUS blog:

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under the Constitution.

While the opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens said that a local government could not take homeowners’ property “simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party,” the New London. Conn., project involved in this case was “a carefully considered development plan.” While the resulting project would not be open for use by the general public, the Court said, there is no literal requirement of that outcome.

Well, my copy of the fifth amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How a private development could possibly be justified as public use is beyond me. Worth noting that the conservative judges came down on the right side of things.

Fuckers.

Update: I am seriously pissed off about this. Apologies in advance for the obscenities you’ll see out of me for the next few days.

Fuckers.

Update 2: The AP story is here:

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Update 3: Blake has some reactions. It is a national tragedy.

Update: Another quote:

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: ”A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result.”

Simply got it wrong is a bit of an understatement. How about willfully disregarded?

Fuckers.

Here’s the opinion, which I have not read yet due to the threat of having a conniption.

Update: Kevin:

Bill Von Winkle now has three choices: Submit, go to jail, or die. His legal options are finished.

And still this isn’t the straw that will break the camel’s back.

But it ought to be.

There’s a blog that deals with Eminent Domain in Ardmore, PA. Give it a read. I do find it odd that the blog generally opposes eminent domain but is all for historic preservation. In my mind, property rights are property rights and they include the power to keep or dispose of. After all, if we wait long enough, all property will be historic.

Another case of abusing eminent domain to take property from one private party to transfer to another:

A developer wants to buy a downtown Hollywood building that he says is critical to his multimillion Young Circle project, but the owner doesn’t want to sell.

Now, Hollywood leaders are considering using their legal muscle to take the property on behalf of Southern Facilities Development, which has a deal with the city to build retail space and about 200 condos above the historic Great Southern Hotel.

It’s not uncommon for the powers that be to forget the public use portion of the fifth amendment but when they claim that the benefit is considered just compensation, they’re really reaching:

Kruses didn’t take $5,000 offered; now city says project benefits will be only payment

The city took the property to install a sewer:

Even though [city officials] offered the Kruses $5,000 for the property late last year hoping to avoid an expensive condemnation process – an offer the Kruses rejected – Water Resources Program Manager Ted Nitza said a cash payment now would be “inappropriate because we feel the benefits of the project (to the Kruses) exceeds the value of what was taken.”

Now normally in a movie I root for the good guys. It is the base nature of myself that I want good to win and evil to lose. Sometimes what is defined as evil is vague and hard to define.

An example is the movie “Wall Street” with Martin Sheen and Michael Douglas. Michael Douglas played the character of “Gordon Gekko”. Now I like the subtle usage of a cold blooded lizard as his last name. In it he gives a speech that I consider one of the best several lines in a movie ever spoken.

“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed–for the lack of a better word–is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms–greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge–has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed–you mark my words– will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.”

Greed creates profit and direction, and yet today it is used as a four letter word by so many. Ones who are oblivious to the fact that they normally work for companies whose greed for profits keep them in a job with all of the benefits that come with it.

So after watching that movie I came to the conclusion that it was a simply sad attempt to attack something that works so well for this country, capitalism and the greed.

So when I was reading this post on The Free Liberal about the pirate like nature of Brazil and pharmaceutical drugs one thing jumped out at me and like so often today I ended up mad at our own government.

Brazil – endeavoring to become a socialist paradise under its current president, former union leader and avowed communist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – provides a HillaryCare-type of system in which the government provides free HIV treatments to all its citizens. And socialized health care of that kind is, naturally, expensive.

So on June 1st, Brazil’s lower house approved a bill suspending patents on AIDS-fighting drugs. The bill’s sponsor declared, “Constitutional protection for patents is not absolute, but subordinate to social interests.” And a deputy for the Workers’ (of the World, Unite!) Party added, “Patents have to be suspended if they’re harming public health.” Both lines could easily have been lifted right off the pages of “Atlas Shrugged.”

So they have decided that international laws are in the way so to heck with them. If a company knows that whatever it makes will be stolen by other governments then why will it invest in it? It wouldn’t waste it’s time, and because of that greed people are alive.

Now piracy aside it is what our government did that bothers me so much.

Of course, like every good crook, the Brazilians have found a way to justify and rationalize their piracy. See, there’s a clause in the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, which both Brazil and the U.S. have signed, commonly known as TRIPS. As Drug Industry Daily explains, TRIPS “allows a developing country to temporarily ignore drug patents to bring affordable drugs to its population in times of health emergencies.”

So what does it say in the TRIPS section of the WTO charter that allows that? I went and found this about the rights that a patent holder has and international eminent domain.

Article 31
Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder

Where the law of a Member allows for other use (7) of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or third parties authorized by the government, the following provisions shall be respected:
……
(b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time.

Sounds like eminent domain. They will make some proposals, and if you do not like it they take it anyways. Our government has just opened the door for foreign countries to have eminent domain over our patents, our ideas. Mental theft using the power of the state.

So why should a company invest years and millions into something earth shaking when the WTO laws would allow other countries to “borrow” it if the social need exists? Greed is movement even if you do not like the word, legal theft by a government is a death sentence for everyone not saved by items not invented because of TRIPS

The Mountain Press:

A government’s right of eminent domain was never intended to give local officials an absolute, unlimited power to take somebody’s property for virtually anything. It is supposed to be used primarily to permit government to pay fair market value for land needed for public improvements, such as roads or utilities. Yet in recent years some governments have sought to use their eminent domain authority to obtain land for other purposes, from a new Wal-Mart Supercenter to a shopping complex. While those developments would serve the public good, they are private enterprise efforts.

Yup. At issue is the city of Pigeon Forge (where Dollywood is for you non-locals) is trying to take private property to build a parking complex.

Haven’t posted here in awhile, few things lately have been driving me to write. But this cavalier attitude by the school board just hit a nerve today:

“They haven’t said ‘no,’” Tiller said. “They understand we have the right to take (their land). They’re not unwilling to negotiate.”

But the owners have retained an attorney, Tiller said, and are in the process of getting their own appraisal of the property. Tiller said he offered them the same deal – $45,500 per acre. The second appraisal should be done by the end of June, Tiller said.

At that point, the school board will either enter into a contract with the owners or condemn the land.

“The site will be available in any event,” Tiller told the members of the Knox County Board of Education during their meeting Wednesday, when the site was announced.

Besides the facts that I’ll have to drive past this mess every day now on my way to work, and that they’re turning a perfectly lovely piece of farmland into an eyesore, no doubt, it’s the attitude that really annoyed me. “The site will be available in any event.” What country are we in again?

Eminent domain is not limited to just the US and super store sites.

Those evicted who feel that they have not been compensated adequately may have little redress. M Becquelin said that last year the courts received instructions not to take up any case seeking compensation. And residents who lose homes or businesses face the combined might of city authorities and wealthy developers eager to profit.

“In a system so opaque there are huge avenues for corruption for anyone with a lead about an area to be developed,” M Becquelin said.

The bigger the government program or plan, the more people that will shoved aside. China has only reached the 300,000 mark. All in the name of progress and the Olympic spirit.

The Wall Street Journal has a back and forth on the eminent domain.

In Sunset Hills, there are plans to take private property and turn it into a shopping center by abusing eminent domain. The plan would displace 254 residents and all but two adjacent businesses. Displace is a nice term for kicking people out under the threat of a gun.

And more abuse in Albany:

In March, the city declared the area blighted under state law, which gives the city the power of eminent domain. That means the city can seize private property for public use — or even for private development, if it benefits the public.

Actually, that private development bit is unconstitutional even though it is common practice.

I like the term sports welfare. It seems whenever a sports team needs a new facility, the taxpayers get stuck with it and someone loses their land.

The WaPo has a piece on fighting eminent domain. One I find interesting (and by interesting I mean made up):

About 90 percent of condemnations, however, involve properties acquired for purely public purposes, and they make up most eminent domain actions, said James L. Thompson, a Rockville real estate lawyer whose firm has handled more than 200 eminent domain actions over 25 years.

I don’t think that’s hardly the case. I follow the issue and read about it quite a bit. Most cases I see (at least in the press) involve taking from one private party to transfer to another. Like this one:

In March, airport officials said they wanted to take over Cramer’s Airport Parking, a neighboring business, and develop the land for privately run, airport-related operations, such as a cargo base or maintenance facility. The Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority, which owns HIA, has offered to pay about $1.57 million for the property.

While we can argue what public use is, I know what it’s not. It is not taking land from one private individual to turn over to another just because they may open a business.

Jen Chung reports that Pataki and Bloomberg are trying to take control of Ground Zero from its developer through eminent domain. Disgusting.

Seems a lot of property rights issues come out of that state:

The Long Branch City Council took the first steps toward condemnation of properties in the Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone at Tuesday’s meeting.

The council approved two resolutions authorizing the city to retain two law firms to “perform services of redevelopment counsel for the Beachfront North Phase II project of the city of Long Branch.”

“[The resolutions] are obviously for acquisition of the property,” city Financial Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr. said in an interview prior to Tuesday’s meeting.

Another case of taking private property and giving it to a private developer. The SCOTUS needs to get off its ass and rule on Kelo soon, though I don’t have much faith that the SCOTUS will make the right decision.

NY Republicans are arguing with each other over eminent domain:

“I would never support the taking of private property by government, for purposes other than obvious public good,” said Blew. “A highway, or a life-saving facility,
perhaps but never for a public park.”

Blew said he believes landowners in the township are the ones who are best able to plan for the future.

In Nevada, a developer-backed bill that limits eminent domain has the approval of the senate:

A developer-backed bill that would limit use of eminent domain powers by government entities to preserve open space won approval on a 16-to-four vote in the state Senate.

[snip]

The bill would help a developer tied up in a lawsuit over plans to build upscale homes on the old Ballardini ranch just south of Reno, but Care says he doesn’t want to interfere with that litigation.

Another case of the powers that be using eminent domain to handle zoning and code issues:

Boca Raton city government is taking steps to permanently eliminate problems with a trash-strewn home on Palmetto Park Road.

The City Council this week initiated eminent domain proceedings against Albert Schulz, 57, the owner of a house at 600 W. Palmetto Park Road that city officials say has been a filth problem for about nine years.

Boca cannot foreclose on the house because it has a homestead exemption. So it chose the more aggressive step of taking the dwelling by eminent domain.

I’m not sure what a homestead exemption is but it seems that enforcing zoning ordinances is more appropriate.

Looks like residents of Hell err New Jersey are becoming resistant to Eminent Domain:

This week, it was announced that a group is forming for owners of commercial properties who are concerned about their properties in the city’s redevelopment zones.

Against this backdrop of growing advocacy, the city is pushing ahead with redevelopment plans and last week met with developers who presented plans for the Broadway triangle, or gateway, zone.

Last Sunday, the Beachfront South Coalition, formed just last month, met for the second time to discuss the next steps in fighting what they say is an abuse of eminent domain, according to coalition founder Harold Bobrow.

In Groton:

With little discussion, members of the Groton Dunstable Regional School Committee voted last Wednesday night to seize by temporary eminent domain property located in East Groton for possible use as the site of a future elementary school.

What is temporary eminent domain? Do they give it back when they’re done? I read the article and still have no idea what is meant by temporary.

I have mentioned Koscielski’s Guns and Ammo and their fight against the powers that be before.

Now, Dave’s Picks has more:

It’s been fifteen years that Minneapolis has been trying to outlaw gun shops within city limits by using zoning regulations to make it impossible to sell guns in the city. Mark’s been fighting this all along, and since 1995 has been the only shop allowed in Minneapolis. In 2002, it became impossible for Mark to locate his shop anywhere in Minneapolis due to revisions in the zoning ordinances. He moved, and reopened anyhow while continuing to fight the city in court.

Why is this a big deal? Well, mostly it’s still legal to own a shop that sells guns, and in various legal battles, it’s been determined that using zoning to force people out of business isn’t kosher. Look into the history of “adult shops” in various cities for more on that. I don’t think it’s right to use zoning to make it impossible for a legal business to operate within the city, and neither does Mark.

Jed has more.

Via David

The city of Maryville has annexed a portion of land to build a Wal-Mart. WATE says they can’t confirm that it will be a Wal-Mart but my inside sources tell me it’s pretty much a done deal and there will be a Wal-Mart put there.

Aside from offering tax incentives, I’m not sure why the city would annex it.

Eminent Domain hurting businesses:

A local business that has served the Huntington community for 59 years is being forced out by Marshall University. Eminent domain, the law that allows government to seize private property for public use, has been a buzz word around the Tri-State recently.

Glaser Furniture, a business located on Third Avenue, is being forced to close so Marshall can expand. What message is this sending to other local businesses? How can one business, who has helped the Marshall community, simply be forced to close? Huntington was founded before Marshall was a university, and although Marshall makes Huntington the city it is today, there needs to be some limits to where Marshall can go.

And I really don’t think a university expansion qualifies as public use.

In Norwood, the powers that be want to demolish a math and reading center for some upscale offices and condos.

Another group in New Jersey is fighting for their homes that are slated to be bulldozed for redevelopment. Of note to me was this quote:

“I have been representing property owners all over New Jersey for 30 years in eminent domain cases,” Wegener said. “It is my entire practice.

Fighting for property rights is enough to keep a full time lawyer in New Jersey busy.

But only in that half-ass, they don’t really mean it kind of way:

The Virginia state legislature has passed SB301 which will protect some owner rights when property is seized by the state or its divisions through eminent domain.

Property owners, however, will have to wait a while before they obtain any kind of relief. The bill provides that when property is seized by any state government agency and has not been put to the public use for which is was seized after a period of 15 years; the property owner must be offered a chance to repurchase it. The offering price must be the original sale price plus interest at 6 percent per year.

Or how about, you know, just not taking it in the first place if the project isn’t ready to go?

A bill is in the works to curb eminent domain abuse in Nevada:

Care’s 2-page bill would bar the use of eminent domain by government agencies to get property for open-space use or for “protecting, conserving or preserving wildlife habitat.”

The measure also says an agency could exercise eminent domain powers to get property for a redevelopment project only after making a written finding that “a condition of blight exists for each individual parcel of property” being acquired.

Not the best but it’s a start. Of course, since the federal government owns 92% of Nevada, they’re probably running out of room.

We keep seeing more bills against eminent domain lately. I’m guessing people are getting mad enough to contact their representatives or they figure the Supreme Court will not rule in favor of property owners.

First, a jury sides with a landowner regarding just compensation:

After a one week trial, the jury found on March 10 that the MBTA underpaid Ricky Bernasconi, the owner of the former Landing Auto Sales property on 25 Quincy Ave., by approximately $325,000.

Attempts to obtain comment from the MBTA about the verdict were unsuccessful.

On Jan. 29, 2002, the MBTA took the land from Bernasconi, who operated a used car sales and repair business on the property.

At that time, the MBTA valued the land at $350,000.

Bernasconi filed suit on Sept. 29, 2002 through his attorney, George McLaughlin III of the McLaughlin Brothers law firm of Boston, claiming that the MBTA undervalued his land.

The jury concluded that the land was worth $673,000, resulting in damages of approximately $700,000 after interest, almost double the value initially determined by the MBTA.

Excellent. Also, citizens fight city hall in opposition to eminent domain and win.

And a politico was pitching eminent domain at a meeting and almost everyone disagreed with him.

A good day for property rights, I’d say.

The fifth amendment specifies that owners of land taken by the .gov for public use receive just compensation. How just is just? A bill in Indiana may specify that said compensation is 150% of assessed value. I don’t find it unreasonable that just compensation include potential earnings on property as well.

GOB and land grabs in NY. Lobbygow is on it.

People are starting to notice and get a little mad:

An opinion piece reporting that ED caters to developers:

Mayor Adam Schneider claims Long Branch citizens just don’t understand the need to use eminent domain to take property. Unfortunately, we understand all too well. No property is safe from being stolen if a developer comes up with a plan for high-end condos and better ratables. Most homes in the affected area were well kept and family owned. Only a few rentals could be called blighted.

More residents are taking up the fight:

According to the Bobrows, the new coalition will have two goals, “to stop eminent domain abuse and to obtain equitable compensation for property if taken.”

The coalition is open to all interested parties, including individuals who do not live in the Beachfront South area or any redevelopment zone he added.

“If other people want to join who think eminent domain abuse is wrong, they can come too,” he said.

And what would you expect from a town called Liberty:

Under this nation’s original property law, the Fifth Amendment, “A man’s home is his castle” carried the weight of Scripture, but present laws suggest, “A person’s home is his government’s, which can buy and sell that home to anyone for a profit.”

The situation is an injustice perpetrated upon Northlanders and other people nationwide by the government’s unrestrained, oppressive use of eminent domain.

People who used to live around Kansas City International Airport learned that fact the hard way.

The Star-Telegram notes that the SCOTUS may be leaning toward the city:

The justices — two were absent — seemed reluctant to stop local governments from taking private property and then turning it over to other private property owners for development. Because the new development will pay more taxes and perhaps create jobs, the reasoning goes, it’s an appropriate public use.

If it’s public use, why is it going to private developers? Do we all get free condos?

Wal-Mart’s bid was defeated and there’s this, which could prevent this type of thing from happening in the future:

Legislation by Rep. Jack Venable, D-Tallassee, seeks to prevent governments from taking land through “eminent domain” to build commercial retail space.

“It would prevent municipalities from taking your home, your farm and giving it to Wal-Mart to build a new store using, as a reason for that, increasing tax revenue for the city,” Venable said.

Of course, the SCOTUS would do the right thing, this stuff wouldn’t be necessary.

Sumner County is asking the legislature to define just compensation:

The legislation asks that property owners be compensated for future damage and loss of use of the overall parcel as an element of damage, which could be considered when awarding damages for condemnation of property.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor in potential future earnings from the land either.

End the misuse of eminent domain

City’s Eminent Domain Stand Is ‘disgusting’

Eminent Domain Huge Threat To Homeowners

Newday:

If New London can seize people’s homes so private developers can build a hotel and convention center, what will cities do next? several Supreme Court justices asked during arguments Tuesday.

Can a city decide to get rid of the Motel 6 and put up a Ritz-Carlton, asked Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, because the luxury hotel would produce more taxes?

“That would be OK?” she asked.

“Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Some good news in Indiana:

The Indiana House voted Tuesday to make it more costly for government to condemn private property for the sake of commercial development, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could lead to even more restrictions.

Supporters of House Bill 1063 complained that the wants of developers have trumped the rights of average citizens. They argued that eminent domain laws, which allow the government to buy property against the owners’ wishes, have strayed far from their original purpose of making it possible for roads and other necessities to be built.

Erin Durkin says ED’s future is unsure.

In Utah, homes are scheduled to be bulldozed to make room for a Wal-Mart:

Residents of a tucked-away downtown neighborhood and other Ogden residents angry at City Hall rallied Monday to protest a plan to bulldoze homes and businesses for a new Wal-Mart superstore.

At the peak of the rally, more than 40 carried signs showing a slash mark through the words “eminent domain abuse” and calling for reform of redevelopment laws. Passers-by honked and flashed protesters thumbs-up signs.

“Something is wrong with this picture,” said protester Bill Glassman, an Ogden real estate broker and investor. “Do not take homes and viable businesses away and give [the land] to a big company!”

Lobbygow, in All Your Home Are Belong to Us, notes:

In other words, “The Old Boy Network can do what they damned well please with regards to anybody’s property.” This moral sleight of hand involves a bit of misdirection by pointing out that the seized properties are paid for after all. So fucking what? A market that is not a matter of choice is neither free nor fair. If I am forced to sell my property at a time that is not of my choosing, and with no power to set my own price, then the payment cannot possibly be fair.

Yup.

Kevin notes that things are not going well for the plaintiffs.

ScotusBlog notes:

Marty reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today’s property rights cases overwhelmingly.

In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O’Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn’t presented in Kelo, but the Court’s opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.

I hope not. It would really mark the end of property rights in this country.

With Kelo coming today (CNN has a summary), here’s what blogs saying:

Eric – Constitutional violations aside, something about this process would seem to invite political chicanery, if not outright corruption. Want a good deal on a piece of property? Contribute large sums of money to the right guy’s campaign, and it’ll be yours for a song!

Southern Appeal: – According to the Petitioner’s brief, the City and a private development corporation seek to take Petitioners’ 15 homes to turn them over to other private parties in the hope that the City may benefit from whatever trickle-down effects those new businesses produce. Petitioners argue that the majority opinion below incorrectly equated “public use” with the ordinary “public” benefits – taxes and jobs – that typically flow from private business enterprises. The Petitioners urge the Court to adopt a bright-line rule that the possible increase in taxes and jobs does not qualify as a public use.

Tim Cavanaugh has a link rich post that with too much info to quote. Go read.

Pejman Yousefzadeh offers checks to address abuse of eminent domain.

The Institute for Justice has more.

Stephen Green rightly calls it legalized theft.

And I’ve been all over it.

Update: Lobbygow is on it too.

It seems that one thing most sides of the political spectrum can agree on is that eminent domain abuse sucks.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Kelo v. New London, which is arguably the most important property rights case in recent years. The Post Gazette has two articles on the issue. The first notes:

It has been 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of the power of eminent domain in the case of Berman v. Parker, in which it upheld the condemnation of private property by the federal government as part of an urban renewal plan in the District of Columbia.

The other notes the confidence of one of the people involved in Kelo:

“How could we possibly lose this?” Von Winkle said in an interview. “You can’t do what they’re doing. If Pfizer wants property, they’ve got to buy it, not steal it.”

At issue is whether or not the .gov can take property from one person and transfer ownership to another private entity in the name of public use, which has very recently been bastardized to mean public good. A ruling for the property owners would be great and the right thing to do. A ruling against will likely mean the end of property rights as we know them. Seriously.

Good read at CNSNews on the tyranny of eminent domain and how the Kelo case will determine the future of property rights in America:

The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in “the public interest” — because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government.

This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property.

The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99-Cents Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: “99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?”

To such government officials, the fact that an individual earns a piece of property and wants to use and enjoy it, is of no importance–all that matters is “the public.”

But as philosopher Ayn Rand observed, “there is no such entity as ‘the public,’ since the public is merely a number of individuals…the idea that ‘the public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.”

The Supreme Court begins hearing it tomorrow.

So, you’re big oil and gas corporation and you happen to own an island. You decide you want to donate the land for a nature preserve. You’re wrong. You should develop the island. Actually, the city will take it and do it for you:

Pennsauken officials are poised to take a major step next week toward taking Petty’s Island as part of a $1 billion waterfront redevelopment project.

On Wednesday, the township committee is expected to pass an ordinance authorizing Pennsauken to begin acquiring the 292-acre island through eminent domain. The island’s owner, Citgo Petroleum Corp., is opposed to the development and wants to donate the land as a nature preserve.

And there’s some brilliant reporting:

The township has the right to take Petty’s Island through eminent domain because it is in a redevelopment zone.

My copy of the Constitution doesn’t mention redevelopment zones.

With five days to go before the Supreme Court hears what is arguably the most important property rights case in recent history, it’s worth noting that over 30 municipalities filed friend of the court briefs in support of taking private property from owners to turn over to private developers.

In one week, the Supreme Court will hear Kelo v. New London, arguably the most important property rights case of our time. With a week left, the seven families are preparing to go before the Supreme Court and plead their case. A recent account:

Fifteen houses are all that remain of Fort Trumbull, a once vibrant immigrant neighborhood on the southeastern Connecticut shore. For years, bulldozers have been leveling houses to make way for a city’s high hopes: a hotel and convention center, office space and upscale condominiums.

The homes, surrounded now by swaths of rutted grass and gravel, stand in defiance to the project. Refusing to sell or leave, seven families will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 22, arguing their city has no right to take property solely in the name of economic development.

At issue is whether the government can take land from one private entity and turn it over to another private entity. To exercise Eminent Domain, the Constitution requires that the land be for public use and that the owners be given just compensation. The city will likely argue that it’s for the public good and that the projected increase in tax revenues are for public use.

Matthew Greene sums up the recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision:

What if the government could condemn your house and the rest of the houses in your neighborhood, and then give them to a development company to put a hotel and some office space in their place because your town had fallen on hard economic times?

Well according to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, that’s a perfectly acceptable use of the government’s eminent-domain powers.

He’s thankful that the Supreme Court will hear the case. I’m not so certain the Supreme Court will do the right thing.

Another move by a government to ban limit eminent domain abuse:

The Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday voted unanimously to pass legislation restricting the use eminent domain powers. Senate Bill 86, authored by Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-Brunswick), prohibits the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the purpose of transferring the condemned property to a private developer, corporation or any other private entity for the purpose of expanding the tax base or for economic development.

Good. This shouldn’t require a ban as it should already be illegal.

Every once in a while, a new twist on the government land grab really raises my eyebrows. A reader familiar with the case emailsone such case:

Some call it a Catch-22 situation. Others say it’s a bureaucratic nightmare that Janice and Gary Duclair have found themselves in as they try to sell their house at 4254 Vervais Ave. After living there since 1977, and with their children now grown, they have moved to Manteca and asked local Realtor Mike Carey to sell the house. Located in a commercially zoned area, or so he thought, since the Duclairs moved there, he had an offer of $850,000 from a buyer who wanted to use the house for a business venture. But City Hall turned him down when he sought assurances the buyer could get a business permit. It seems that unbeknownst to the Duclairs or almost anyone else in Pleasanton, the City Council had rezoned the land for a park.

Now, I can buy that a park is public use and as long as there is just compensation, there shouldn’t be any of the objections I normally have. But doing such a thing out of the public eye is questionable if not outright criminal. Additionally, it seems that no one was aware that anyone lived on the street in question as it was set aside for a new road.

When city planners attack from behind closed doors, something seems awry.

Norwood, a city trying to unconstitutionally use eminent domain to take land from one party to turn over to a developer, has had an interesting turn of events:

After the jury was selected Monday, the judge ordered jurors be given a tour of the property to give them a better sense of its worth. Once inside the building, though, the jurors, court workers and attorneys got a surprise.

The owners had festooned the interior with signs, banners and a mannequin dressed in clothes attacking the government’s use of eminent domain to seize private property.

That was done, Burke and Powell argued Tuesday, to convince the jury to award Motz a higher price.

“(Motz’s) outrageous conduct was calculated to serve no legitimate purpose, but rather to illegitimate(ly) injure the City of Norwood’s position in front of the jury,” Powell and Burke wrote in their request for a mistrial.

Inside one room of the building, the owner posted editorial cartoons attacking Norwood’s use of eminent domain and a photo of a group of protestors in the legal fight over the issue.

The building’s back door, which jurors passed to get to the basement, bore a sign reading, “Government Quit Selling Us Out to Developers.”

In the basement, jurors saw a banner proclaiming “Fight Eminent Domain Abuse in Norwood” next to a mannequin dressed in a T-shirt that sported an anti-eminent domain message. The dummy also was holding a sign that read “Being Forced to Sell is Just Not Right.”

This resulted in a mistrial.

No problem. Just annex a business:

The company contends the following: The annexation is not necessary to further promote the welfare of city residents; the city only wants the property for revenue purposes, and the property owner does not require city services; and the city “has not followed the required statutory procedures” in pursuing the annexation.

The city has vowed to vigorously defend the annexation. I drive past Vulcan every day. There’s really nothing there. I think it’s pretty clear the motivation is for tax revenue.

This potential eminent domain case seems pretty silly to me:

An agency backed by the city is preparing to take Day’s business by eminent domain to make way for something called a “Media Box.”

Day can take the offer of $67,500 for his property – less than the city says it’s worth – or continue with an already drawn-out court battle. Either way, he has little chance of keeping his shop on a triangle of land at Spring Avenue and Olive Street.

Critics say Day’s situation is a classic example of the abuse of eminent domain. A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could affect thousands of similar cases nationwide.

It’s part of a revitalization effort but no one was talking about what exactly a media box is. Someone finally came forward to clarify:

But last week, Michelle Cohen, a public relations executive recently hired by Grand Center, said the “Media Box” is a building that will hold a design studio and apartments or condominiums.

“The ‘Media Box’ is really the working title for the design studio piece of it,” Cohen said.

Another case of forced private party transfers.

Not only has Eminent Domain been used to take land from one private party to give to another private party for development, now an attempt to abuse it for natural resources is in the midst:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission earlier this week asked a Senate committee for the power of eminent domain in the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities, a move which could potentially impact the city, Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. said Thursday.

Lambert said an LNG expert retained by the city believes the recommended vapor exclusion zone for Hess LNG’s proposed project is not large enough because a vapor cloud could extend beyond the property where the company hopes to build its LNG facility, meaning that the power of eminent domain might be needed to go forward.

More taking of property to make someone else money.

Also, here’s a case of a water district that is concerned about a bill that makes it harder for them to take land:

Beaver Water District officials are concerned about the implications of a bill making it harder for public water suppliers to use eminent domain to condemn private property to protect water quality.

The bill provides a voluntary alternative to condemnation and allows water utilities to use the power of eminent domain only as a last resort. Senate Bill 230 was filed Thursday and is assigned to the Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee.

In every case, ED should be used absolutely as the last resort.

And, again, in California:

Jo Stringfield knows her home is neglected. She hasn’t been able to muster the energy to finish projects since learning that the city wants the land and if she won’t sell, it will be taken by eminent domain.

“I was going to do a little repair work, a little upkeep,” Stringfield said. “But why do it, when I don’t know how long I’ll be able to stay?”

Grand Terrace officials want the 1.9 acres Stringfield’s house sits on in the 2200O (sic) block of Barton to build Town Center, a shopping complex with a grocery store, restaurants and a new city library.

Another case of transferring property to businesses.

The Good:

Town councilors unanimously voted Tuesday night to reject a request that they support the New London Development Corp.’s use of eminent domain.

The Bad:

An editorial notes the transition from public use to public good.

The Ugly:

As if to prove it’s nothing but a land grab, Houston will take your land either by foreclosing on delinquent taxes or eminent domain. Doesn’t matter, we want your land. It’s for a good cause.

Lobbygow on the OwnerSHIFT Society:

Make way for the OwnerSHIFT Society™, a kleptocrat’s paradise, where local municipalities and well connected developers are eager to help homeowners and small business entrepreneurs achieve that special warm glow that accompanies sacrificing your hard-won dreams for the greater good – developer’s fees and sales tax revenues!

Sadly, this cronyist utopia is threatened by an upcoming SCOTUS case, Kelo vs. New London. Apparently some selfish, petty homeowners with quaint notions of “property rights” and neighborhood integrity are questioning the Old Boy Network’s god-given right to do whatever they damned well please.

He also links to No Land Grab, which notes that a number of cities and municipalities are filing briefs in Kelo v. New London to defend the practice of abusing eminent domain to take from one private party to give to another.

Also, reader John emails this article about Eminent Domain in California. When city planners attack:

Sacramento officials want property owners of rundown buildings, struggling businesses or empty lots along portions of K Street to create thriving shops there – or else.

In a proposal to be presented to the City Council today, property owners in the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street would have 90 days to come up with viable redevelopment plans. If they don’t, city officials will begin negotiating to buy the property, and as a last resort take the sites through eminent domain, said Wendy Saunders, the city’s director of economic development.

“We haven’t tried anything like this before,” Saunders said. “We’d like people who own the properties who would like to be developers to be given the first shot.”

Nice of them to give owners the option of developing or else. However, taking the land to give to other developers fails the public use test.

First, Lobbygow reminds us that the Bush administration is considering filing a friend of the court briefing in Kelo v. New London.

Next up, my old friend Tearsa Smith has an article on how property is acquired through eminent domain. She left out the phrase usually unconstitutionally.

I am a bit annoyed that Wally, the owner of the property the county is looking to take, has apparently taken down most of the information on both his pages. He goes through the trouble of alerting local blogs, gets my panties in a bunch, then takes it down. What gives, Wally?

Update: Michael Silence notes: Board of Education chairman said Wednesday that he is going to return to the school system’s traditional method of negotiating for land.

Returning to the traditional method of actually negotiating in the first place?

Update 2: Info removed for now.

Update 3: For reader Steve K., Wally emails:

It’ll be back. It had nothing to do with anyone being upset about it. There were some inaccuracies that we were trying to get corrected.

Please let everyone know. I am not upset with the people on the School Board or in the School System. I believe that this is the “Wrong price, therefore, the wrong location” for a school.

The county wants to build a school and needs land. Via Bubba, comes the KNS round up:

The Knox County Board of Education will discuss Tuesday condemning three pieces of undeveloped land to use as the site for a much anticipated new high school out west, said board Chairman Dan Murphy.

“It’s my intent to discuss it, to debate it, to consider the process of condemnation and then in roughly 30 days call for a vote – unless, of course, we can negotiate a sale before then,” Murphy said.

After an “exhaustive search” for about 40 acres of flat land, Murphy said, school officials have found the three neighboring sites they want. Negotiations with the three owners – two individuals and one estate – have failed, he said.

However, one of the owners reports that no negotiations have occurred. The county seems to be jumping the gun on this. If I had to guess why, I’d say it’s because they want to rig exactly how much just compensation they have to pay. I have no issue with legally pursuing the land as it is for a school (which constitutes public use in my book). However, they should tender an offer for the property before getting all government on somebody.

Update: Here is more info.

Robert Santiago writes:

Long-time Collier County land owner Jesse James Hardy has a showdown with a state judge early next month to determine whether the government can force him off his 160 acres of mosquito-infested property.

Last year, the state filed court papers for eminent domain to force Hardy to take a lump-sum buy out. Eminent domain allows states to take a person’s property for the public good, giving them fair market value.

Actually, it’s for public use not public good.

For the last three years the government has been trying to get Hardy to sell his land to make room for its $8 billion Everglades restoration project, which will flood land from Lake Okeechobee south to the ocean, artificially turning it into wetlands and, theoretically, restoring a pollution-free water flow.

Having failed, the state filed for eminent domain.

So, they want to take a man’s property and turn it into unusable land? I really don’t think environmentalism constitutes public use. As Hardy says:

”It’s my home and it’s where I run my business and where I raise my family,” said Hardy. “Why should I leave just so the government can conduct its billion-dollar science project?”

Via Ned:

“The moment an idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” – John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

Cato’s Doug Bandow calls Eminent Domain abuse legal plunder:

Alas, this case was no anomaly. As Steven Greenhut, an editorial writer for the Orange County Register, observes in his timely new book, Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain (Seven Locks Press, 311 pages, $17.95), “governments increasingly use eminent domain to take property from one private owner in order to give it to another private owner.” A small home owner or businessman then “must surrender his home or business because a wealthy developer — perhaps a big campaign contributor and mover and shaker in the community, or an out-of-town corporation promising an expanded tax base for the city — has bigger and better plans for it.”

The Institute for Justice, which takes on quite a few property rights case, will not defend a group of Tempe, AZ homeowners due to stressed financial resources.

I’m not one who usually pimps for people to donate to causes but if you have an extra nickel or two, consider donating to The Institute for Justice. You can do so here.

A ban on Eminent Domain for redevelopment (you know, the illegal kind of Eminent Domain) has been delayed in Kentucky:

The ordinance, introduced by Commissioner Brian Strow, would have prohibited the city from condemning land for the purpose of turning it over to another private entity, such as a development company. The ongoing plan for the city’s ambitious downtown redevelopment specifically allows that use, citing potential economic development as a worthwhile public purpose.

Toxic waste and Eminent Domain seem to be the only things coming out of New Jersey these days.

Eminent Domain in California put on hold. Good.

A reminder Kelo v. New London is heading to to the Supreme Court. Here’s a quick summary.

In (not so) Freeport, Tx, Eminent Domain is being used for the confiscation of private land to build a private yacht marina. A reader emails Scandal In Freeportwhich is keeping up with the Freeport case.

An editorial reminds cities that the use of Eminent Domain should be for well-defined public purposes.

And in New Jersey, it’s still OK to take from one private individual to give to another:

“What a wonderful Christmas present for the people of Sayreville,” Mayor Kennedy O’Brien said. “Five years of persistence and hard work have been vindicated in court.”

Yes, usurping the Constitution, breaking the law, and illegally taking someone’s property is a wonderful Christmas present.

It’s like they’ve got a deadline to meet or something.

This time, in Kentucky. A city plans to take commercial buildings, vacant lots, and private residences and turn them into more private residences. That is not public use. Apparently, this is also to preserve a historic area. Hats off to Commissioner Moorman:

Commissioner Bernie Moorman agreed the plan was a good one, but voted against it because it will allow the city to force the sale of property using the power of eminent domain — which he described as a “cruel and not necessary process.”

“The plan has good intentions, but it’s an evil process by which to execute the plan,” Moorman said.

Evil, indeed.

In February, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Kelo v. New London. This is an important property rights case that will hopefully restore the public use clause of the fifth amendment. That clause has been bastardized and public use has somehow been interpreted as the public good, which means a government can take your land and give it to someone else to increase tax revenue. Clint Bolick writes that the Bush administration is seriously considering filing a brief opposing property rights:

Ordinarily, an administration weighs in on other people’s cases only where a direct federal government interest is presented. Here, no such interest exists, because the federal government typically uses eminent domain only for public use.

So what is it that is impelling the administration to betray its principles?

Is it succumbing to pressure from federal bureaucrats born of solidarity with state and local power? Is it seeking to shelter big business interests that are beneficiaries of eminent domain abuse?

We can’t know because no one in the administration is saying. Even worse is the brazen disdain with which the administration has dismissed pleas from some of its staunchest allies to stay out of the case.

It is a bit questionable that no information is known as to why the administration would support such a thing but, given the big government Republican government we have, I wouldn’t find it surprising.

Mother Jones, which ordinarily isn’t worth the paper it’s not printed on, has an informative piece on Eminent Domain.

And another cash-strapped city (Daytona) is planning to rob citizens and give their property to developers.

Lobbygow has the details on (to use his various for euphemisms for dookie):

This Leviathan of a development firm has already shat two indescribably hideous piles of cement excrement into the heart of Brooklyn, Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal. Of course, these concrete coprolytes are only a warm-up for the big dump, the much ballyhooed Atlantic Yards Project, an orgy of neighborhood destroying crapola that adds insult to injury by introducing the specter of eminent domain.

Wal-Mart, with its tradition of trying to get politicians to take land, is at it again:

Ogden City wants Fernandez, along with residents of 33 other homes and owners of eight businesses, to move out to make way for a Super Wal-Mart.

“It’s not a palace. But it’s my home. It’s my home!” says Fernandez, a widow who keeps a big garden and lives on a Social Security check.

On summing up the issue:

“I don’t think in America we should ever be forced to do this,” says Hal LaFleur, who owns several of the area’s private parcels, including the 4-year-old building that houses his son-in-law’s welding business. “This is not for public use. This is for Wal-Mart.”

The SCOTUS will hear Kelo v. New London on February 22.

Fighting eminent domain abuse has rallied troops from both sides of the political spectrum:

The Institute for Justice has soldered progressive and conservative groups into a surprising coalition that is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit the taking of private property for economic development.

Twenty-five groups with assorted political views have filed briefs in support of the Fort Trumbull residents who are resisting the city’s effort to take their houses to make way for offices and a hotel that will strengthen the city’s tax base. The Institute for Justice is representing those residents before the high court, which will hear the case on Feb. 22.

The use of eminent domain riles libertarian groups, including the Cato Institute, because it infringes on an individual’s right to hold property. And it vexes progressive groups, including the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, because it undermines the strength of community.

The Boston City Council has officially sanctioned the abuse of eminent domain:

The City Council voted yesterday to extend the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s urban renewal powers until 2015, allowing the agency to continue using eminent domain in private development projects.

In Golden, Colorado a privately funded group has been set up to ensure water supplies are adequate. What is disturbing, however, is this:

Because the district has private backing, it won’t use voter-approved mill levies or taxes, as most special districts do, but it will have powers such as eminent domain.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to grant any privately funded entity the powers of the state.

In addition to abusing eminent domain to take land from private parties to give to other private parties (which violates the constitutional criteria of public use), some governments try to use it to get an unfair price (so much for just compensation):

Capital Improvement Board members said Monday that the city has failed to negotiate a price with the current owner. The property is listed on a real-estate Internet site for $10 million.

“What we’re really talking about is a disagreement over its value,” said board President Fred Glass.

Other board members said the price was “two or three times” what the city is offering. Under eminent domain, the city can take the property and pay a value assigned by a third-party appraiser.

Big Box Bullies:

Mega-merchandisers such as Costco Wholesale Corp., Home Depot Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. try to control acquisition costs the old-fashion way — they have politicians take the desired land from property owners so it can be transferred to them.

“Legalized theft” is not an oxymoron to those familiar with eminent domain. Government’s right of eminent domain had been limited to taking private property, and offering compensation, for truly public uses. New roads. Fire stations. Courthouses.

Now government grabs private property on behalf of the big-box bullies. The confiscation is rationalized as being for the greater good, supposedly to create jobs and produce taxes. And the original owner is offered some money.

The jumbo-jerk arrogance was epitomized by Costco vice president Joel Benoliel. He told shareholders two years ago that “probably dozens” of its projects involve eminent domain “or the threat of it.” He also offered that this is not a corruption of the free market and that limiting government land-grabbing to genuine public uses was a “simplistic” libertarian argument.

So dozens of stores are planned to be taken through eminent domain. I find it offensive that respecting property rights and abiding by the Constitution are “simplistic” libertarian arguments.

And, in New Jersey, another case of taking from private citizens to give to private developers:

The city plans to knock down all the houses left on her street, Titus Avenue, along with one block of Pennington Avenue, to make way for 15 new houses officials hope will each fetch $90,000, nearly twice what Thompson stands to receive in compensation.

Taking from the poor to sell to the rich.

This time, in Ohio:

The Milo Grogan neighborhood is organizing against a proposal for a new shopping center that would wipe out 200 homes through eminent domain.

Another city taking private property to hand over to another private individual.

A Jersey legal firm has filed a friend of the court brief for the pending Kelo v. New London case:

An Atlantic City organization is getting involved in a Supreme Court case it says has ramifications for developments in South Jersey.

South Jersey Legal Services has filed an amici curiae – or friends of the court – brief in connection with a Connecticut eminent domain case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the organization’s deputy director, Douglas Gershuny, said Wednesday.

[snip]

South Jersey Legal Services’ suits also accuse Camden and Mount Holly of civil rights violations, as the two neighborhoods declared blights are minority neighborhoods.

I do wonder how much credence the SCOTUS puts in friend of the court documents?

In the first, a city tells a property owner to do something with his land or they’ll take it:

Downtown property owner Ron Lau vows he will fight the city’s attempt to seize his land for redevelopment.

“That’s unfortunate and misguided and just a flaw in how we as human beings operate,” Lau said of the city Redevelopment Agency’s plans to condemn his Pacific Avenue property that has been sitting empty since the Loma Prieta earthquake leveled much of the area in 1989.

A Hawaiian native who lives in Watsonville, Lau is a self-described free spirit who doesn’t like to be told what to do or when to do it. He owns the gaping concrete pit between Lulu Carpenter’s and the World Savings Bank branch — a spot many see as nothing but an eyesore and place for weeds to sprout in the heart of downtown.

The 20,000-square-foot lot has been appraised at $1.4 million.

Lau has 90 days to accept an offer by local developer Bolton Hill to buy the parcel. If a deal is not reached, the agency will attempt to negotiate with Lau. If that proves unsuccessful, the city says it will consider eminent domain.

The push to take the land came from a private developer. Another case of forced private party transfers.

In another case, the land has already been taken and given to a private developer. While the judgment is being appealed, another judge gave the developer the go ahead and tear down the building on it. The justification:

The financially strapped city has insisted it needs the property for the proposed Rookwood Exchange development — 200 condominiums, apartments, retail space and 550,000 square feet of office space — to bring an additional $1.8 million annually in earnings tax into the city’s coffers. The development also will generate an additional $300,000 per year for Norwood schools.

That’s pretty abysmal.

St. Louis residents getting kicked out for a new shopping center. Worse, is the shopping center will be taxpayer funded:

Smith’s south-city neighborhood near Carondelet Park is about to become the latest of many that the city is looking to grant a TIF, a thirteen-year-old tax-increment financing arrangement that allows developers tax breaks to raise new buildings in so-called blighted areas.

The Desco Development Group, a Clayton-based developer and the Schnuck family’s development company, plans to put a $40 million shopping center called Loughborough Commons on the 30-acre parcel of land at Loughborough and South Grand avenues, adjacent to I-55. Desco spokesman Steve Houston says the firm is looking to build a bigger Schnucks and a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, and to bring in some smaller retailers. The project has been in the works for eighteen months.

Another case of government taking private land to give to other private parties. That is not public use.

PG Politics notes that the Prince George’s County is proposing an amendment to the Maryland Constitution to authorize the County Council of Prince George’s County to provide for the immediate taking of private property situated in Prince George’s County under certain circumstances. The purpose, of course, is for economic development so they are authorizing taking land to give to private developers.

John D. Crosier notes that the city of Nashua is abusing the Hell out of eminent domain:

FOR MORE than two years, the city of Nashua and Pennichuck Corp. have been at odds over the city’s professed intention to acquire the company by eminent domain.

Yes, the city just wants to take over operations of a private company. So far, the company has spent $2M defending itself and its investors are getting shaky. John D. Crosier nails it:

The city is not only attempting to take the company’s water works inside the boundaries of Nashua, but also is laying claim to Pennichuck subsidiaries that provide water service outside of Nashua through systems that are entirely unconnected to the one serving the city. The power of eminent domain is not being used for any overriding public benefit, but to block a legitimate business decision made by Pennichuck’s board of directors to merge with another company. City leaders have essentially admitted as much.

Such abuses are an egregious violation of property rights and an indicator of state as nanny going way too far.

Here’s an article that looks at another case of Eminent Domain abuse cases headed to the Supreme Court. It also addresses the problem:

Court rulings have stretched the definition of “public use,” adding urban blight and job creation to the original goals of acquiring land for highways, public schools, and the like. Ohio law says eminent domain in the name of economic development cannot be used solely to expand the tax base. It must create jobs and the positive effect must happen in a reasonable amount of time.

Some examples:

Among the most egregious examples of abuse of eminent domain, the institute and other critics say, occurred in Lakewood, Ohio, where the city council deemed a neighborhood of 200 homes to be “urban blight” to make way for a condominium and retail development with a movie theater.

In Mesa, Ariz., the city wants to remove Randy Bailey’s Brake Repair Shop to make way for a larger, more valuable Ace Hardware store.

In New London, the city has condemned private homes on a 90-acre tract to make way for a waterfront hotel and conference center, and mixed-use development of offices and residential units. The project is designed to build upon pharmaceutical goliath Pfizer’s decision to open a research facility in the area.

The Connecticut Supreme Court said New London had a valid public use, claiming the redevelopment would raise the tax base and create thousands of jobs. But an appeal to the highest court on behalf of seven property owners said they seek “to stop the use of eminent domain to take away their most sacred and important of possessions: their homes.”

The fact is that using ED as an economic development tool tramples the property rights of others. Hopefully this Spring, the Supreme Court will rule that way. Given some of their horrendous rulings lately, I’m not feeling too good about it.

XRLQ alerts us to an eminent domain ban in Anaheim:

It is the policy of the City of Anaheim that the power of eminent domain not be used by the City Council or Redevelopment Agency to acquire property from private parties, for the express and immediate purpose of conveying such property to any other private person or entity for commercial uses, when there is no public purpose for the acquisition except the generation or increase of sales tax or property tax revenues to the City.

Good.

Gun ranges near neighborhoods typically don’t go well together. This is typically due to the fact the ranges, no matter how safe they are, just aren’t politically correct. I can’t figure out why people continue to build subdivisions near existing ranges then move to have the range shut down. Benjamin over at Reasonable Nut details the potential for using eminent domain to shut down a gun range.

Here’s a good rundown of the pending eminent domain case that is to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The IJ ranks Kansas and Missouri among the worst land grabbers:

You think you own your home or land until a developer comes along and wants it. The watchdog group Institute for Justice says cities in Kansas and Missouri are the worst in the nation when it comes to taking private property for another person’s private gain.

On the criteria for ED:

“Anything is blight if the city legislature says it is,” said Sherwin Epstein, an eminent domain attorney.

Epstein said blight, by Kansas City’s definition, can be found just about anywhere and is. Flink said the new federal courthouse still sits on blighted land, along with parts of the Country Club Plaza now under development.

The Institute for Justice is taking the case:

“Well, if property is being taken for someone else’s private benefit, that is not a public use. That not only mangles the words of the Constitution, but it mangles people’s basic property rights. And it’s outrageous,” said Bert Gall, of the Institute for Justice.

Eminent domain authorizes a government body to take land from private entities for public use if they pay just compensation. Eminent domain should not be used solely for the purpose of settling the disagreement over what just compensation is:

Negotiations between the city and owner Joe Zivnak of Azusa have been stuck for months, with the city willing to pay $1.75 million and Zivnak holding out for a package deal worth $2 million.

“The city budged a lot” from its earliest offers months ago, Michael Beck, the assistant city manager, said, adding that the amount was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Zivnak disagrees. “The city never budged at all,” he said.

Part of the disagreement is over cleanup costs, including the removal of asbestos and lead-based paint. The city received an estimate of $600,000, and Zivnak said it could be done for much less.

The reason the city wants the theater:

City officials envision a renovated Fox as an entertainment venue – preferably a performing arts center – that would attract thousands of people a week to downtown Riverside.

That doesn’t look like public use to me.

I don’t oppose all eminent domain. I do oppose its abuse, as illustrated above. Or as illustrated in the pending Supreme Court case involving the city of New London where the city is trying to take property from one private entity to give to a developer. However, a case like this one passes the smell test. In this case, the city is taking property to widen an intersection. That is definitely public use.

Even if we don’t value property rights, maybe we do value money:

Donald L. Correll, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pennichuck Corporation, announced today that for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 the Company earned $577,000, or $.24 per share, compared to net income of $1,022,000, or $.43 per share for the same quarter in 2003. Mr. Correll indicated that, among things, the results of operations for the three months ended September 30, 2004 were adversely impacted by nearly $250,000 of legal and other costs relating to the City of Nashua’s ongoing eminent domain efforts.

Bill Hobbs notes that Nashville is robbing the poor to pay the rich:

Nashville’s Metro Development and Housing Agency is threatening to use its condemnation powers under “eminent domain” to take property from two property owners, destroy two small businsses on the properties, and give the land to a well-heeled real estate developer. (sic)

Issues like this are why Kelo vs. New London is such an important case pending before the Supreme Court. Sadly, I don’t have much faith in the SCOTUS to do the right thing.

What to do with that property that you supposedly took for public use but then later change your mind about? Sell it, of course:

Three years after using eminent domain to take possession of a 24.7-acre parcel in Kearny Mesa, the San Diego Unified School District is selling the vacant land to Home Depot for $11.2 million more than it paid.

Wanda Allen, who I mentioned here, gets to keep all of her property:

State law allows cities to acquire property by eminent domain, if it will better the community, but residents and neighbors opposed the idea, and Wednesday night, the Mansfield City Council agreed to look for another place to build.

Good.

The Souderton Independent:

Tinner said the board would impose eminent domain, “a friendly condemnation” which gives the owner some tax breaks, if the landowners cannot come to terms with the district. “Hopefully this will end up friendly,” he said.

A friendly condemnation? You’re taking someone’s land.

Land Survey Blog details the most restrictive land use law in the nation:

Known as the 65-10 Rule, it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question.

That’s pretty horrendous.

The latest potential victim of eminent domain abuse:

The City of Mansfield wants to build a 100-acre project that will include retail shops, upscale apartments and a baseball complex.

To complete the project, the city wants two acres of Wanda Allen’s property.

Again, we have a city taking from one private individual to give to another. The article contains this snippet:

Eminent domain allows a government entity to convert private land to public land with reasonable compensation to the landowner.

There is also the important criteria of public use.

Reginald Shareef on the pending SCOTUS case regarding eminent domain:

I’ve watched with interest this fall as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Kelo v. City of New London. The legal question here is whether a municipality, using the power of eminent domain, can take private property for economic purposes. The case is interesting because it will determine whether cities can seize a person’s property and transfer it to private developers to boost an ailing economy. At the same time, the case is redundant because economic development has been the catalyst behind urban renewal “takings” for the past 50 years.

As the French like to say, “the more things change, the more they remain the same.”

What is different about the Kelo case is the “fig leaf” covering the economic development component of government takings is stripped away as New London openly condemned property that will be used in a private development plan. Heretofore, governments have used their eminent domain powers to condemn property in “blighted” areas, ostensibly to improve them. What a hoax! What really has happened is that these properties were turned over to private developers for economic development.

He then addresses some redevelopment programs in Roanoke.

Lots of happenings with the pending Supreme Court case in New London. The Daily Journal advises caution on the use of eminent domain:

Millville Mayor James Quinn said he couldn’t “let the city down.” He said he wouldn’t be able to sleep if he didn’t support, and the City Commission didn’t approve, an ordinance giving the city power of eminent domain over businesses standing in the way of a new shopping center along Route 47.

Considering what the shopping center would do for this city — 1,000 new jobs and millions of dollars in property tax revenue — it’s easy to understand the mayor’s point of view.

The mayor says the facts are in black and white. We suggest, however, that before the city uses its eminent domain power, it not only calculate the numbers but also count and weigh the human cost and possible loss of trust that could accrue if the city were to relocate or shut down an established business in favor of a new one. City officials must consider the fact that these businesses have provided jobs to local residents for years and during tougher economic times for Cumberland County.

Or, you know, consider the fact that taking from one company to give to another is not public use.

The Institute for Justice is challenging an ED case in Ohio:

A nonprofit law firm today appealed a county court decision that allowed the City of Norwood to forcibly acquire a rental property to make way for a mixed-use development.

The mixed use property is offices, rentals and retail property. Again, not public use.

The News Herald says one thing is for sure:

Whenever you see the term “eminent domain” in the paper, you know one thing for certain – some governmental body is attempting to take property away from an unwilling private owner.

If the rightful owner were willing to sell his land, that person obviously would reach an agreement with the city, state or other governmental unit that is orchestrating the land grab.

The purchase price would be agreed upon, the governmental unit would write a check, and the deal would be closed.

And in Hell err New Jersey, residents ask the city to wait on the Supreme Court ruling:

Residents of Long Branch’s redevelopment zone pleaded with the City Council last week to put a hold on eminent domain proceedings involving their properties until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.

“The Supreme Court has taken the eminent domain case,” Harold Bobrow, of Ocean Boulevard, said at the Oct. 12 council meeting. “Put this [the redevelopment plan] on hold until after the decision of the Supreme Court. Once [the homes in the redevelopment zone] are down, they are gone, kaput, goodbye.”

A good read on eminent domain abuse and the pending Supreme Court Case:

When the Supreme Court announced in September that it would hear Kelo v. City of New London, it sent ripples through state and local governments everywhere. At issue in the Connecticut case is whether the city can exercise its right of eminent domain – the constitutionally based power to take private land for “public use” in exchange for “just compensation” – not for historical purposes such as a highway or flood control, but to bring in more tax revenue through private development.

The Court has decided a handful of related cases throughout its history, but it has always expressed doubts that a judicial rule-of-thumb can be applied to a process that is grounded in so many local variables, including a community’s economic needs and real estate prices. Its position has essentially been that the local governing entities are in the best position to decide those questions.

Despite its remove from direct electoral politics, the Court is not insensitive to the winds of change, and its willingness to take on Kelo v. City of New London reflects two trends: perceived abuse by governmental entities that have used the power to take private land for private development, and a conservative campaign to roll back eminent domain to the bare minimum by making the purchase costs too burdensome for local governments.

I’m don’t have much faith in the court to do the right thing but they may surprise me.

On the pending SCOTUS case:

Whether local governments are appropriately taking privately owned property for economic development projects is at issue in a case accepted for review by the justices of the nation’s top court. The case will mark the first time the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on eminent domain law in 20 years.

The case specifically challenges plans by a Connecticut town to condemn privately owned property so a private developer can build a hotel, a conference center, office buildings, housing and parking.

Taken state by state, court rulings have produced a patchwork quilt of case law addressing eminent domain. Seven states allow condemnations for private development alone. Eight forbid the use of eminent domain when the purpose is not to eliminate blight. Three states are ambiguous. And 32, including North Carolina, have not addressed the issue.

I’m rather surprised that many states forbid the use of eminent domain except in cases of blight. I’d like to see more of that. Of course, I’m sure the blight designation has been abused as well. This article mentions a couple’s dealings with eminent domain. The author provides an interesting snippet:

But over a span of about 50 years, the courts have inexorably changed the generally accepted justification of “public use” into a broader concept of “public benefit,” a critical distinction that opened the way for local governments in fiscal crisis to condemn whole neighborhoods as “blighted” and turn them over to private, profit-seeking developers and corporations. The rationale is contained in a kind of trickle-down corollary that presumes the public would benefit from the jobs and tax revenue generated by the redevelopment. That was the thinking behind the gigantic IKEA project in New Rochelle’s City Park.

By any definition, eminent domain for private benefit is corporate welfare. And it continues to spread at an alarming rate across the land, here and in most states.

According to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group that has waged numerous legal battles against this abusive form of eminent domain, 1,000 properties were targeted for condemnation between 1998 and 2002, but those stark numbers hardly tell the story of the individual lives that are disrupted or ruined by the heavy-handed process.

Often times, even if you win the legal battle, the costs are still significantly high.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of eminent domain in New London, CT (which I’ve written about a few times):

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide when governments can seize homes and businesses for economic development projects, a key question as cash-strapped cities seek ways to generate tax revenue.

At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain provided the owner is given “just compensation” and the land is taken for “public use.”

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing that it was an unjustified takeover of their property.

I’m not too optimistic, given how the court has generally let the people down lately. At issue is whether or not a city can take from one private individual and give to another (which is not public use) to develop businesses.

First, the good. There is some reform in eminent domain law in New York:

Nearly four years after a Port Chester property owner went to court to challenge New York state’s rules for taking private property, Gov. George Pataki has signed a law reforming condemnation procedures.

The new law means property owners in New York no longer need to pore over tiny legal notices, searching for clues of government plans to take their land; governments will need to notify each property owner by certified mail or personal delivery.

The eminent domain law reform was signed Tuesday by the governor and was announced by his office yesterday.

It grew out of a battle by Bill Brody, a 42-year-old businessman from Rye, to hold onto four sites in Port Chester’s downtown redevelopment area.

“I’m very glad that the governor agreed with what I have been saying all along and that the state is going in the right direction,” he said yesterday in front his building-supply business in the Bronx.

Brody said he never saw the condemnation plan announcement in a July 1999 legal notice, which neither named him nor identified his Port Chester property by address. Because of that, Brody said, he failed to challenge the condemnation in the 30-day period allowed.

Now, the bad. This article equates eminent domain with despotism:

The U.S. Constitution, properly construed by a vigilant Supreme Court, prevents untrammeled power, which is the definition of despotism. But the human propensity for abusing power — a propensity the Constitution’s unsentimental framers understood and tried to shackle with prudent language — is perennial. There always are people trying to carve crevices in constitutional terminology to allow scope for despotism. Such carving is occurring in Connecticut.

Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4 to 3 ruling last March by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term “despotism” exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.

That city, like many cities, needs more revenue. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company’s $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood’s middle-class homeowners.

Given the Supreme Court’s recent travesties, I’m not particularly hopeful or encouraged by the fact they may visit the issue. They could surprise me, though.

With the goal of a shopping center in mind, city officials in Millville drafted an ordinance to take land from existing businesses. Tentatively, the ordinance has been tabled:

Over the last few months, city officials had prepared an ordinance authorizing condemnation proceedings in accordance with local redevelopment and housing laws and eminent domain.

Ah, the shotgun approach: throw many different condemnation plans and hope one sticks.

On abuses:

Those who follow eminent domain abuses were cheered by the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling this summer that it is illegal for the government to seize private land and transfer it to another private owner for public “benefit.”

But that’s one state. The abuses will not end until the U.S. Supreme Court stops the land-grabbers.

The predicate for these abusive eminent domain cases is that a private entity — the government’s good buddy, naturally — will make better use of the land by providing more jobs or greater tax revenue.

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Lancaster County Commission:

Three months after exercising eminent domain to take land for public use, the Lancaster County Commissioners this morning condemned their colleagues in York County for doing the same thing. Lancaster County Commissioner Chairman Pete Shaub today spoke in opposition to the York County Commissioners’ vote in May to take a 79-acre parcel near Wrightsville.

The land, formally a part of Lauxmont Farms, a 766-acre horse farm, was slated to be an upscale housing development called “Highpoint.”

More taking from one private person to give to another.

The Supreme Court will decide whether hear the case of the city of New London taking property from 15 homeowners and giving it to private developers. I don’t have much faith in the Supreme Court given their recent shortcomings in campaign finance reform and Silviera v. Lockyer.

An Illinois town is suing to take land for a new school.

Here’s a plug for a book that highlights abuses of Eminent Domain, entitled Abuse of Power: How the government misuses eminent domain, by Steven Greenhut:

Few phrases in the American lexicon seem as ominous, regal and potentially frightening as “eminent domain.” And that’s as it should be. The government’s power to condemn and forcibly take a person’s private property, even if compensation is paid, isn’t something to be taken lightly or used in a frivolous or indiscriminate way. The right to one’s property is a bedrock American principle. It should be waived only under narrow and rare circumstances – and when the power of eminent domain is invoked, it should be for clearly recognizable public benefit.

Private property rights are today under siege in many ways. But perhaps no more so than in the misuse of eminent domain by government officials dealing favors to private companies and interests. Evidence of these abuses has been anecdotal and fragmented until now. Thanks to the publication of Steven Greenhut’s “Abuse of Power: How the government misuses eminent domain,” we now have the most comprehensive, up-to-date look yet at this American scandal. Published by Seven Locks Press, it’s available through amazon.com.

Greenhut is a senior editorial writer and columnist at a sister paper, The Orange County (Calif.) Register. He casts a wide net in trying to get a handle on a national problem. “Eminent domain creates an avenue for corruption,” Greenhut points out, “as government officials get to play God with other people’s neighborhoods and businesses, and can therefore punish enemies and reward friends.”

I wonder if he means abuses like this:

Ms. Kelo and the Derys are among seven property owners who refused to budge after city officials approved an economic development plan to upgrade their 90-acre waterfront neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, by creating prime office space, a hotel, 80 units of housing and a Coast Guard museum.

Because these people would not sell their property, the New London Development Corporation took title to it through eminent domain, a decision upheld in March on a 4-to-3 vote by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property through eminent domain in exchange for “just compensation,” but only when it is for “public use.”

Or this one:

The city of Columbiana is attempting to have the Summer Classics property rezoned from light industrial to a retail shopping district. And the city is threatening the use of eminent domain to get the property at what it considers a fair price.

Columbiana Mayor Allan Lowe said the city is in need of public parking for its retail district. He also said the city does not want a manufacturing operation in the heart of downtown.

We’ve seen land taken via eminent domain to build a Wal-Mart before, but in a new twist, someone is trying to take land from Wal-Mart for a university:

Rowan University plans to take developers involved in a project to build a Wal-Mart in Harrison Township back to court in an effort to take 115 acres slated for the shopping center by eminent domain.

In a lawsuit filed in Superior Court last week, Rowan University claims it has offered $8.38 million for two rural properties near the interchange of routes 55 and 322 where the developers have proposed building the shopping plaza.

The documents seek to condemn the property and to allow the state university to acquire the land through eminent domain.

Rowan’s suit is the latest development in a legal battle between the Wal-Mart developers and Rowan University over the farmland that has drawn on for more than two years.

Last year, Superior Court Assignment Judge George H. Stanger Jr. denied a similar request by Rowan to condemn the property –then owned by a local farmer who had contracted to sell the land to the Turnersville-based American Continental Properties. Stanger ruled that the state university had failed to adequately negotiate for the land.