Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

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

More Eminent Domain

Terry Gray

Charleston, West Virginia

For years this community has used eminent domain to seize and clear private property for use by private development.  The leaders of Charleston are whining that legislation is in the works which will take away much of their Nazi power.

An unnamed representative of the West Virginia Municipal League attempted to fuel public favor for the continued use of eminent domain to seize private property for private development by saying that they needed this power in order to shut down crack houses.

Whatever happened to the good old, “You’re busted”?  This guy is attempting to ride on the backs of the illegal drug industry to line his pockets and increase his power.  Is his addiction any less devastating to our way of life?

Jefferson City, Missouri

Missouri is one of only two states that allow developers to initiate eminent domain.  Two constitutional amendments are being considered – one would clarify that only the state, cities and counties could initiate eminent domain.  This accomplishes nothing.  Eminent domain is being used to seize land in the other 48 states, and their constitutions limit the use of eminent domain to the states, cities and counties.  The second amendment says that if eminent domain is used and the seized property is not developed, the original owner has the right to buy back the land after five years for the same price that was paid for it by the government.

That is odd – and a bit late.  We’ll take your property and if we don’t use it after five years you can have it back.  Landowners are not going to win in this deal, I guarantee it.

Des Moines, Iowa

Legislators are looking at their eminent domain laws in the wake of Kelo v. New London.  However, Representative Lisa Heddens of Ames said that though she has helped sponsor a bill she doesn’t want to impede economic development.  It sounds like Ms. Heddens will focus on a scarecrow, feel-good bill which will accomplish nothing.  In a Freudian slip Ms. Heddens said, “That (gives) individuals some comfort that my home is going to be protected.” 

First, I don’t think that individuals are worried about your home Ms. Heddens and second, your use of the word “some” leaves much to be desired. Private property owners shouldn’t have to be worried AT ALL about private developers taking their property. 

The suburb of East Village is loosely trying to avert eminent domain for blighted areas by offering property owners city loans to clean up their properties.  So, the city lends owners some clean-up money which puts the city in charge of what gets done, they make money on the loans and hold liens on the properties, and if the owners default then the city forecloses.  Smooth move.

Nashville, Tennessee

Attorney Tom Lee said that Tennessee needs to be careful that “…we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot and put restrictions on our development tools that have been used to good purposes in our recent history, and to make sure that we can continue to use eminent domain powers in redevelopment districts for those good purposes.”  Blah!

 “In Tennessee, only public housing authorities can use eminent domain for revitalization efforts in redevelopment districts. A redevelopment district is a housing tool that allows public housing authorities to give developers financial incentives such as tax credit incentives to encourage the revitalization of mostly inner-city areas.”

Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency has been prone to force owners to sell their properties at below market value and has been ordered in many cases to cough up more money.  Mr. Lee sees this as the biggest problem with Tennessee’s eminent domain laws.

Mr. Lee, taking property from one owner and giving it to a developer who has been given financial incentives to build or revamp lower class housing is theft.  Lower class housing is not a public land use issue.  It benefits those who pay little or no taxes and are likely on government welfare and removes the security of ownership for those who work hard for their money and ask nothing or little from government.

Riverside, California

I have to side with the government on this one, something I seldom say and think even less.

“The Calvary Deaf Church was paid $1.4 million for property that Caltrans seized by eminent domain three years ago. The church said it should have received $5.6 million, arguing that instead of paying the fair market value for the existing buildings, the state should have considered their replacement value in the pricier property market.”

          Here’s the deal:  The California Department of Transportation paid $1.4 million for the property to add to an interstate.  Eminent domain for highways is part of the true use of eminent domain.  The fact that the church feels it got screwed can be chalked up to greed and that they want more money now can also be chalked to greed.  They also want another $200,000 because they lost some members so their tithes suffered.  Why did we hear nothing of this until now? 

          They’ve had three years to build another church and add to their membership.  They are still squatting in another church in town.

          It is crap like this that makes it hard for those who want to fight real abuses of eminent domain to do so.  These folks are jumping on the popular movement in hopes of grabbing some fast cash.

(Editor’s note:  To the extent that the church was trying to get enough money to be able to replace the facility that was being taken from it by eminent domain, it does not seem unreasonable.)

Jupiter, Florida

          This one goes back to 2003, which serves to show the silence surrounding such atrocities against our property rights.

          This man was sued by the Homeowner’s Association of his neighborhood for flying the American flag in his front yard.  He lost his case and was ordered to pay the $25,000 that the Association had spent in attorneys’ fees.

          Read the rest of the story:  Former Marine in his Biggest Battle.

Pennsylvania

State Senator Jeffrey Piccola of Pennsylvania says, “For too long, some local governments have threatened property owners in Pennsylvania with eminent domain for private profit," Piccola said in a December 7 news release. "My legislation will help end these abuses but not touch local governments' ability to acquire property to build everything traditionally considered a public use, such as roads, bridges, schools, and courthouses.

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government and turned over to another citizen for non-governmental use is simply an outrageous proposition and something that was never intended by our founding fathers. The Property Rights Protection Act makes certain that home and small business owners in Pennsylvania know that they can keep what they have worked so hard to own," Piccola added.
What a fine American.

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