Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Eminent Domain

By Terry Gray

Without the security and freedom of ownership, we have no freedom.  This country is based in part on the ideology of hard work, free enterprise, and ownership.  When private property rights and ownership are challenged, we like to call it a socialist or communist state - where nothing we own is sacred and all we own is up for grabs.  If I wanted to live under those rules, I’d move to a country practicing despotism.

“The use of both eminent domain and tax increment financing often involves local government declarations that an area is ‘blighted.’ But blight carries a fairly broad definition, including ‘dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; abandonment; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; deleterious land use or layout; depreciation of physical maintenance; and lack of community planning."  KMBC-TV

The above demonstrates the latitude that the government enjoys when deciding to exercise the power of eminent domain.  Many of the broad definitions of “blighted” are arbitrary.  This looseness serves not only to make eminent domain easier to exercise but it gives the little guy very little with which to fight.

Here are some of the things going on in this country in the eminent domain arena.  There are many citizens standing up against eminent domain as it is used today and surprisingly, even in the face of the unpopularity of the property-thefts taking place, some local government officials support this travesty.

Kentucky

Representative Rob Wilkey introduced HB 114 to further clarify eminent domain usage in Kentucky.  “No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner solely for the purpose of economic development that benefits the general public only indirectly, such as by increasing the tax base, tax revenues, employment, or by promoting the general economic health of the community. However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project or building.”

This bill does allow for eminent domain to be used to seize property that is considered blighted, slum, or unsafe or unclean.  In the list of definitions in this bill there is no mention of the term “blighted”.  Governments have notoriously kept this term close to their hearts, refusing to provide absolute guidelines for defining “blighted”.

A previous bill in this session, sponsored by Representative Rick Nelson, would have allowed ballot approval of eminent domain seizures per individual cases.  This bill was canned when it was realized that wealthy developers could manipulate the polls and sway the public to vote to take private property for the socialist “common good”.

Los Angeles California

“In 2005 the City Council secured funds from a bond for the construction of a new animal shelter, seized the property of a thriving furniture business on which to build the shelter, and are now considering selling the land to a private developer that has given nearly $18,000 in campaign contributions to key city leaders.”  Desert Dispatch.

Greed isn’t just for private property owners anymore.

San Bernardino California

“Just compensation” has been offered to two property owners so that the suburb of Grand Terrace can build a shopping center.  The owners do not want to sell and money doesn’t seem to motivate them.  The city council maintains that it does not intend to use eminent domain to take the property.  However, negotiations have been going on too long and on January 26^th the city council took the first steps in forcing the owners to sell.

This is reminiscent of the same approach used in many unjust government actions.  The government says that they aren’t trying to remove an owner’s property rights when they enact smoking bans, and then they proceed to remove an owner’s rights by enacting smoking bans.

Indianapolis

“The Indiana Association of Cities and Towns opposes House Bill 1010 on eminent domain. While we affirm that property rights of Hoosiers need to be protected from unreasonable seizure by government, we believe adequate protection already exists in Indiana law. HB 1010 imposes unreasonably severe restrictions on government acquisition of private property for public ends. It narrows the types of properties where eminent domain may be applied and unnecessarily drags out the process in a manner that would cripple many timely economic development initiatives.”

Eminent domain was never intended to provide economic development incentives.  It was provided for by our founders to allow government the means to grow and as a last desperate act.  It was intended for “public use” projects, not “public purpose” projects.

There is no such thing as unreasonably severe restrictions on government.  I believe that as citizens we are the subject of unreasonably severe restrictions on many things in our lives.  Government has no reason to complain.

Riviera Beach Florida

“Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown describes the theft of property from some 6,000 residents as a "rescue." What Brown is interested in is rescuing people from their homes so that the wealthier and more entitled residents of places like Palm Beach can build new hotels, restaurants, and yacht clubs. ‘It's not different than building a courthouse or a hospital or anything else,’ Brown said. That kind of detachment from reality should disqualify you from holding office.”  Desert Dispatch

The more Riviera Beach is talked about the worse it all sounds.  I used to live 5 miles from Riviera Beach, which lies just across the intracoastal from wealthy Singer Island.  Crossing the bridge from Singer Island to Riviera Beach is a shock.  From expensive motels and multi-million dollar homes to run down projects and drug dealing ghettos, the transition is startling.  But, this is privately owned land and should be respected as such.

“Riviera Beach residents who are not willing to see their homes demolished to make way for a yacht club are actually deemed selfish by Brown. ‘Some people want to live near the water and pay little or no taxes... who wouldn't?  But city government has to look out for all residents.’ Apparently residents with yachts and tastes for fancy restaurants are higher on the priority list for greedy charlatans like Brown.”

And once again we see that little but important socialist tool of “common good.”

Are owners of private property who refuse to sell being greedy or selfish?  Maybe, but this is America and America is the land of free enterprise.  I can be greedy and selfish if I want to be greedy and selfish.  Being greedy doesn’t hold the negative connotation for me, in the arena of eminent domain, which it seems to hold for the greedy bastards who want to paint free American property owners as greedy.  

Trenton N.J.

The government in Trenton has decided to expand its eminent domain power.  In areas where the city has condemned property the government can hire someone to clean the area and then bill the owner for the clean-up, likely an inflated charge.  If the owner can’t pay for the clean up the government takes the property in lieu of payment.

Norwood Ohio

The government of Norwood wants to take private homes and build a $125 million development of offices and retail shops.  They are using “deteriorating”, one of the broad interpretations of “blighted”, to seize the properties that they covet.

National City CA

City officials are using eminent domain to seize private businesses to build a condominium complex.  The developer has been trying to buy the property for two years with no success, so the city government stepped in and forced owners to sell.

A business owner who owns an auto shop affected by the seizure said of the developer,

 “In your opinion, you have a better use for my property than I do," said Ray Brock, who started an auto business 47 years ago on 11th Street. "That's what Hitler said 70 years ago."

When eminent domain came into play in this city, business owners stood up and fought.  During the proceedings, Councilman Luis Navtividad called the current property owners “greedy”.  I wrote to this Councilman and asked who the greedy party was really.  I told him that he should be removed from office.

On January 12 of this year, the business owners affected by eminent domain began recall proceedings on Councilman Navtividad.

St. Louis Area

City officials approved a $190 million deal to shut down businesses on Forsythe Boulevard in order to build the new healthcare headquarters of Centene Corp.

Former New York mayor Ed Koch spoke in St. Louis and had this to say:

"I don't know the facts in St. Louis, and I don't want to get into that. I can only say those people who oppose the use of eminent domain by a city to upgrade itself and turns slums into areas that people want to live in and work in, people who oppose that are a menace to progress."

Is it progress to take the property of one and give it to another?  As with many “common good” causes, the wealthy and influential typically side with government against the little guy unless of course government comes for the stuff of the wealthy and influential.

Kansas City

A rally attended by hundreds of good Americans was held on January 25^th to demonstrate to local government their abhorrence of eminent domain as it is used today.

Missouri Chamber of Commerce President Daniel Mehan said that city governments need eminent domain to revitalize the urban areas of their cities.  Tax increment financing, a system that allows tax incentives for new development, is being used in K.C.  It makes it more attractive for businesses to locate there and provides a bigger tax base for local governments.

Eugene Oregon

City officials say they don't want to use eminent domain to acquire land for a proposed shopping, office and entertainment complex on Broadway.  But city officials haven’t ruled out using eminent domain either.

Eugene’s activists are trying to limit the government’s power of eminent domain by petitioning to get the issue on a ballot.  They want eminent domain restricted to government projects that only seize property for roads and government buildings.  This is as it was intended to be used.

Stockbridge Georgia

The city government of this small town is buying and condemning land so that it may take it and turn some of it over to private developers.  Under current Georgia law this is perfectly legal.  There are a number of bills in the system in Georgia that will limit the use of eminent domain.

BB&T Bank

BB&T will make no loans to developers who use eminent domain to take private property.  My first thought was to question the motivation behind the bank chain’s decision.  But Ken Chalk, chief credit officer said that, “Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional.  BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights.”

The list of atrocities against property owners and the number of property owners up in arms is growing daily.  Lawmakers are listening because citizens are making noise.  Even rattlesnakes, sometimes aggressive and deadly, just want to be left in peace.  Rile a rattlesnake and he warns with a rattle that his wrath is soon to follow.  American property owners are rattling.

I think that Kelo v. New London was a blessing.  Too often in this country our local governments have misused eminent domain to steal property from owners, and the quietness of the thefts allowed them to continue to work us over.  Kelo brought to light this un-American use of power and wealth, and property owners have stood up in fear and defiance and told the decision makers that it ain’t going to happen.

          Where do we draw the line?  I think we can logically and ethically draw it short of the points where economics are the primary reason to exercise eminent domain and the properties are to be used for other than roads, rails, and government buildings.  It is always easy for government to justify the seizing of property by citing the “common good” fallacy.  When a government presumes to make more money by raising the standards of property through eminent domain, thus raising the tax base, they like to appease the masses by spreading their arms in mock sincerity and uttering those infamous socialist words - “it is for the common good.”  Common good is not so good in a Republic.    

   

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN