|
|
Indiana Fights Eminent Domain
By Mike Minton
INDIANAPOLIS--Throughout the country, we are hearing heart-wrenching story after
heart-wrenching story of small-business owners, plain-OLE residents of Anytown,
America--MY AMERICA-- who actually helped ADVANCE AMERICA to the world leader
that it is today, who are being FORCED by the government (you know the one--"By
the people, for the people"--yea, that government), out of either their
businesses or their homes because a new strip-mall would be better for the local
economy and generate (and here’s the clincher) MORE TAX INCOME!
I cannot begin to tell you how infuriated I am. Of course, I probably don't need
to tell you, as polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans feel exactly
the same way. This is just another example of how our liberal courts have made a
hobby of screwing over the average, hardworking American who makes America the
greatest nation on the face of the Earth.
The origins of eminent domain in the United States bear little similarity to
what is going on today. The following excerpt is from the free online
encyclopedia, Wikipedia:
"In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that
just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires
that "public use" of the property be demonstrated. Most courts have interpreted
"just compensation" to be the fair market value of the condemned property. Over
the years the definition of "public use" has expanded to include economic
development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial
development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local
government. [1] Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law
and tramples personal property rights.
In Calder v. Bull (1798 ), Justice Chase thought it was preposterous for the
government to take one person's property with no restriction and give it to
another private party for their own profit. The definition of 'public use' was
mostly viewed as 'use by the public' until the 20th century. The Supreme Court
started expanding the definition in the 1920's to condemn slums [2]. In 1981, in
Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court, building on the precedent set by Berman v.
Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [3], permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be
taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on
this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [4], as precedent. This expansion of
the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February
2005 [5], in Kelo v. New London [6], when the city of New London, CT wanted to
condemn 115 residences, among other things. In June 2005, the Supreme Court
issued its decision in favor of New London, in a narrow 5-4 ruling—a decision
that gives local governments wide latitude to decide when a seizure is for
"public purposes", including economic development. The court hinted, however,
that states could pass laws limiting the purposes for which eminent domain could
be used. The controversial ruling sparked a backlash among citizens, and several
states either have or are in the process of passing laws limiting eminent domain
to either traditional uses (roads and public buildings) or to eliminate blight."
Well, I want to give a rousing round of applause to some Indiana lawmakers who
are moving to try and ensure that eminent domain, when used in Indiana, is used
within its Constitutional confines.
In fact, according to a Sunday, Nov. 27, Courier-Journal (major Louisville, KY
paper) story, Indiana lawmakers apparently considered trying to change eminent
domain law last year because they knew the U.S. Supreme Court would be deciding
the issue. However, as the article points out, few state lawmakers expected the
Supreme Court to reconstruct the law
(See:http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051127/NEWS02/511270375).
There is a feeling on both sides of the aisle in Indiana that something needs to
be done. I think Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said it best in the Courier’s
story, where he called the Supreme Court’s decision "erroneous" and
"wrong-headed."
"To take my home away from me -- where I've raised my kids and my members are so
a developer can make a profit and government can tax it more is contrary to what
our forefathers believed about owning property," he told The Courier-Journal.
Rep. David Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, says he doesn’t think the members of the IN
General Assembly who want to restrict the use of eminent domain will succeed, so
he has a different kind of proposal--one that will make it "significantly more
expensive" for developers wishing to cash in on the new interpretation of
eminent domain.
The newspaper’s story says that "Wolkins plans to introduce legislation that
would put other requirements on private-to-private land transactions through
eminent domain. Property owners would receive at least 150 percent of the fair
market value of their owner-occupied homes, plus compensation for their
relocation costs and attorney fees for fighting the seizure under his proposal.
‘We're going to work to make sure people get something out of this,’ he said."
"Wolkins also wants a law that prohibits eminent domain for private development
unless the next-best alternative would increase the project's cost by 10 percent
or more" the newspaper explains.
Other Indiana lawmakers, however, do want to restrict the state’s ability to
abuse the power of eminent domain. Sen. Connie Sipes, D-New Albany, has said
that forcing party A to sell to party B, just for the purpose of party B making
more money, isn’t fair.
Sipes, along with fellow Democrat Rep. Bill Cochran, also of New Albany, met
last week with Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to let the Governor know
where Hoosiers stand concerning the eminent domain issue.
According to Sunday’s Courier story, "Daniels has not weighed in publicly about
eminent domain. But through his press secretary, Jane Jankowski, the governor
said he believes "we should be very careful about its use" and it should be
reserved for "truly public purpose." He did not say whether he believed eminent
domain should ever be used for transactions that involve private landowners."
Personally, I see these lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, as heroes!
Finally, we are starting to see some of these elected officials, who were, after
all, elected to MAKE laws, take the reins back from activist judges who are
trying to make the law up as they go.
I certainly am not as learned as they who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, but
even I can see that the new interpretation of eminent domain is a clear
infringement on Americans’ Constitutional rights!
|
