Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

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

Eminent Domain – More

Terry Gray

A right undefended is a right waived.

It seems odd to me that eminent domain has been used in insidious ways to seize property for many years in this country, and it is only now that legislators are doing something to protect and preserve American land ownership.

New London Connecticut

          A new twist has developed in this town of national infamy.  Calling it a compromise, the city has offered to move the homes of two of the six homeowners threatened by the Kelo versus New London Supreme Court decision.  The deal is that four owners will be allowed to stay and two of those homes, including Susette Kelo’s, would be moved within the development area.  The city would then charge the owners rent to live in their homes.

          While final decisions are being made on this “compromise”, the city council voted to begin charging rent anyway.      

San Jose California

Mayoral candidates for this city are split over the use of eminent domain.  Why?  The only people who pull for eminent domain are those seeking government positions of authority, those in government positions of authority, and developers.  What about the American people?

I find it interesting that two of the candidates, Hispanic Americans, support eminent domain in its current capacity.  The trend that I’ve seen with Hispanic Americans in office or seeking office is to embrace the notion of less freedom for citizens.  Is this a carry-over from the concepts learned in Mexico?  Why do Hispanics come to this country seeking freedom and then support agendas that oppose freedom?  (Editor’s note:  Contrary to popular belief, not all Hispanic Americans are from Mexico, and many Hispanic immigrants embrace capitalism, property rights and the American dream just as immigrants from other areas  have done throughout our history.)

Philadelphia Pennsylvania

A state court of appeals said that the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority violated separation of church and state when it used eminent domain to seize a woman’s property to build a church affiliated private school.

The debate centered on whether or not The Hope Partnership used eminent domain to seize the property through the powers of the PRA and thereby “established religion”, a 1^st amendment no-no.  I say that someone on the PRA either saw a boost in his bank account or a free pass to heaven.

Also in Pennsylvania

As the Pennsylvania legislature muddles its way through another session, it debates various laws to restrict eminent domain.  Good for them.  However, a popular bill would exempt from the law Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Delaware County until 2012.

Representative Tom Yewcic said, "That promotes two Pennsylvanias - one the land of the free, the other the land of the oppressed.”

Jane Milkman, President of a group called 10,000 friends of Pennsylvania, isn’t happy about limiting eminent domain.  She fears that development on a local level will be damaged.

The group isn’t called 10,000 friends of Pennsylvania citizens.  It is 10,000 friends of Pennsylvania.  This leads me to believe that the group will side with government and against the citizens of Pennsylvania.  However, with only 10,000 friends out of millions of Pennsylvania citizens, I don’t expect Jane to have much of an impact.

St. Louis Missouri

Jumping on the bandwagon begun by BB&T, Montgomery Bank of St. Louis’ Chief Operating Officer Troy Wilson said, "The sanctity of private property ownership is one of the hallmarks of our individual rights as private citizens. Eminent domain should only be used for public projects, not to benefit private developers."  As of last week they refuse to make loans for development of property seized by eminent domain.

And now I get suspicious.  “Lo, it is a good thing that we have done.  Now do business with us.”

Riviera Beach Florida

The saga of Riviera Beach continues as the local government scrambles to find positive public relations to neutralize the national outcry against them and the U.S. House of Representatives holds them up as a poster child of eminent domain gone wild.

I see this problem as one consistent with wealth versus poverty.  The mayor of Riviera Beach and most of the surrounding area of this community secrete wealth, and the residents of Riviera Beach are poor.  Don’t get me wrong, I have no special place in my heart for the poor; I don’t pity them.  I entertain the notion that they have nowhere to go but up and nothing to lose if they should fail in whatever endeavor they attempt.  However, what I see here is money usurping freedom by lording power over those who are hard pressed to fight back.

This statement made in the face of the federal government chastising Riviera Beach speaks volumes about the mentality that we face in this country.  Floyd Johnson, executive director of the Riviera Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, said “legislators were ignoring the work Riviera Beach has done in getting people in the affected areas to agree to sell their land before seizing it.”

Translation:  Sell us the property or we are going to take it.  This scenario still provides no choice to property owners and is a clear cut power lever which serves to cement the notion that in the mentality of those in charge abides one philosophy – dictate.  Sometimes no means no, a sentiment not easily understood by those in charge who are used to getting their way.  Some people, believe it or not, are not motivated by cash.

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire legislature is considering a law that will weaken government’s use of eminent domain.  It is likely to pass given that all 24 senators have sponsored the bill.

But every silver lining has a cloud, and Cordell Johnson of New Hampshire’s Municipal Association believes that many projects would be forbidden if eminent domain weren’t available. 

Cordell lists several projects that he thought would never have happened if property owners were allowed the right to peaceful enjoyment of their properties.  Three of those projects involved roadways that were needed for economic development.  The Manchester airport access road, Rochester Spaulding turnpike exit 10, and the Derry Londonderry exit 4a.  I think a fine line can be drawn but a distinctive line none-the-less between using eminent domain to seize property for building roads and using eminent domain to seize property so Mr. Greedy can build a strip center so Mr. Greedy government can make more in taxes.  We can see and understand this distinction when we consider public airports that are also mini malls.

Three other cases in New Hampshire involved good old theft.  Eminent domain was used to allow Fraser Papers to buy an idle pulp mill in Berlin New Hampshire.  Manchester also used eminent domain to grab property to build the Verizon Wireless Arena.  Finally, Concord used eminent domain for a property grab to build a downtown hotel and conference center.  The hotel was never built, but the conference center eventually was.

Now the kicker, each of the above transactions was agreed to by the private property owners.  Given that, how can Mr. Johnson suggest that the new rules restricting the use of eminent domain would prohibit transactions like these?  Mr. Johnson doesn’t want to weaken the state’s ability to exercise eminent domain, that’s how.  He wants it to appear that owners cannot agree to sell their properties thereby stymieing the growth of cities. 

Georgia

Governor Perdue has proposed a “Private property protection act” that limits government’s use of eminent domain.  It “prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development or to boost tax revenue. It would also give private property owners stronger due process rights. And the bill places the burden of proof on the government to show that that the taking is legal.”

The proposal is a compromise however, because the Governor didn’t want to upset powerful people in real estate with the possibility of tarnishing his legacy.

"It was a compromise bill," said Al Outland, director of policy and communications for the Georgia Municipal Association.  "It could've been a lot worse."  Worse?  You mean it might have had some muscle to actually protect property owners from your greedy, political paws?

          One of the problems with fighting eminent domain is that there are citizens who subscribe to the notion that bigger government is better and if achieving bigger government means stepping on the citizens of this country then so be it.  

"I believe there could be some good with eminent domain especially if it's for the greater good of the city, "says John Lapierre a property owner.

  Would you like to wager that Mr. Lapierre has a fine house that he believes will never fall into a blight category and therefore he is safe from prying government hands?  The fact that Mr. Lapierre is a property owner doesn’t mean that he doesn’t work in government or in real estate development.  You have to watch the sneaky press.

Kentucky

Representative Wilkey has proposed a law that will “limit” eminent domain use in Kentucky.  It is a good start in that it changes the wording of KRS 416.540 to read “public use” as opposed to “public purpose”.  However, Mr. Wilkey’s proposal, HB 508, is weak in that it still allows for “The acquisition and transfer of property for the purpose of eliminating blighted areas, slum areas, or substandard and insanitary areas in accordance with KRS Chapter 99.”

KRS Chapter 99, subsection 020 states,

“It is hereby declared that in cities of the first and second class substandard and insanitary areas exist which have resulted from inadequate planning, excessive land coverage, lack of proper light, air, and open space, defective design and arrangement of buildings, lack of proper sanitary facilities, and the existence of buildings which, by reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design, or physical deterioration, have become economic or social liabilities, or both; that such conditions are prevalent in areas where substandard, insanitary, outworn or outmoded industrial, commercial or residential buildings prevail and are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, crime and poverty; that such conditions impair the economic value of large areas, infecting them with economic blight and that such areas are characterized by depreciated values, impaired investments, and reduced capacity to pay taxes; that such conditions are chiefly in areas which are so subdivided into small parcels in divided ownerships and frequently with defective titles, that their assembly for purposes of clearance, replanning, rehabilitation and reconstruction is difficult and costly; that the existence of such conditions and the failure to clear, replan, rehabilitate or reconstruct these areas result in loss of population by the areas and further deterioration, accompanied by added costs to the communities for creation of new public facilities and services elsewhere; that it is difficult and uneconomic for individual owners independently to undertake to remedy such conditions……”

This continues on and on.  With that in mind, is there anything that doesn’t fall into the “blight” category when the government wants to exercise eminent domain?

Instead of legislators making feel-good laws that are mere shells intended to do little more than boost their poll ratings, legislators need to understand that this American way of life, property ownership, is an issue that that may be the deciding factor in whether America survives as a Republic or erodes into the wave of Socialist Nazism threatening our freedoms.

Iowa

The Dubuque Chamber of Commerce President, Stewart Sandstrom, calling eminent domain a necessary evil says, “It's not nice, we don't even want to do it but it's for the public good."  And if that isn’t enough, “There were sizable pieces of property that we needed the eminent domain laws to compel property owners to be willing, not very willing but willing enough."

Does this man even realize what he is saying?  Has he listened to himself?  “The public good” is a vehicle used to deliver Nazism to Americans at wholesale.  Most Americans aren’t buying it; the price is far too high.

His second statement echoes the mentality of a previous German Chancellor when he sold a bill of goods to unsuspecting German citizens in the 30’s.  It is double speak, a mentality that George Orwell warned us of.  Respect for freedom and American values would preclude the use of “compel” and “willing” in the same sentence.

Pasadena California

City officials want to seize a restaurant that has been a mainstay of the community for three generations so that they can hand over the property to a Mercedes dealership wanting to expand.

The city said it has offered a “fair market value” for the property and can’t understand the holdup.  I believe “holdup” is the operative word.  Seldom if ever do city governments pay “fair market value” for private property.  Why should they pay up when all they have to do is offer the deal and then use “blighted” should the owner squawk?

The owner of the restaurant has decided that he won’t sell at any price thereby forcing the local government to attempt to condemn the property, an unpopular action these days.  Maybe local leaders will figure out that they are in office by the graces of free citizens of this country and stepping on the little guys is a stepping stone to the stomping of our elected officials.

San Diego California

The citizens of San Diego, in an effort to retain their land rights, began a petition drive to change the city’s use of eminent domain.  After it appeared that the citizens of San Diego actually wanted to securely own their properties, the San Diego city council pushed to put the issue on the ballot.

It strikes me as odd that a blatant misuse of our constitution can exist for this long and only when people begin kicking about it does government take steps.  Further, why should this issue even be on a ballot?  It is obvious that government’s use of eminent domain is not only unconstitutional but it is just plain wrong.  Citizens shouldn’t have to vote on an issue that is so un-American that only those who oppose freedom in this country would support its use.

The next logical step in the ballot process will be for wealthy developers to blanket the air waves and print media with propaganda designed to scare the land owners of San Diego.  “Our community will become stagnant.  Our school system will cease to grow.  New fire houses will not get built.  The citizens of this community will suffer greatly as the rest of the country prospers.  Is that what the citizens of San Diego want for their community?”  Property rights groups and private citizens will likely be unable to answer the onslaught in kind.  Those who do not own property will not join the fight and the little property owners will be unwilling or unable to help fund opposing information.  As always, those seeking oppression will have money and power on their side while those seeking freedom will be swept aside.

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