Eminent Domain Editorial
In Memphis, the request for using eminent domain to take expensive downtown property to give to developers is becoming an issue. The paper’s editorial on it contains this:
Some developers have complained that Downtown land costs too much. They want the city to use its power of eminent domain to seize property and then turn it over to them.
This is a power that’s best used sparingly, for a number of reasons.
Seizing a private property owner’s land should only be done in cases in which there’s a clear public benefit.
Indeed.
September 1st, 2004 at 12:06 pm
Unc, you’re agreeing on the “public benefit” bit again.
Government always sees increased tax revenue as a “clear public benefit.”
The Constitution say “public use.” End of discussion.
September 1st, 2004 at 12:12 pm
I know but it seems most people use the term interchangably (even me, up until you pointed it out). I don’t think it’s any sort of nefarious thing on their part.
September 1st, 2004 at 12:39 pm
It’s how they got the holdouts’ properties to build the FedUpForum. Some long-time businesses had no interest in becoming part of the parcel of land the City had selected, and so had their property taken from them “in the public interest.”
September 1st, 2004 at 2:36 pm
Stadia and arenas are a really grey area to me. Most of them are publicly owned, (named after a sponsor), but the use is almost entirely for the benefit of a private organization (the team it was built for.)
Pac Bell Park in SF is really weird-the city owns the land-owned it before they built the park-but the Giants paid for the actual building and lease the land from the city.
Not sure how ED would work in a case like that.
And Uncle, you should send a letter to the editor to clarify their usage.
September 1st, 2004 at 4:53 pm
I would love to see a constitutional amendment explicitly prohibiting the government from forcibly taking land from one private party and turning it over to another private party, except in such cases where there are extenuating legal reasons for doing so (for example, slum lords).
This is one of the three or four issues that Uncle and I agree on. 🙂
September 2nd, 2004 at 1:08 am
> Some developers have complained that
> Downtown land costs too much.
OK, I think my RCOB moment is finally over. Good grief, if there was ever a reason not to invoke eminent domain, this has got to be it. Pay the damn market rate, you rapacious idiots!
September 5th, 2004 at 10:42 am
The Butchers did this a long time ago – that’s how they got their land to build their broke bank buildings. There was a Michigan case a few weeks ago that said this is unconstitutional and I think it should be permanently banned.