PROPERTY SEIZURE FEVER IN GEORGIA

I do think that I have at least one issue that I talk about on the air that most ... not all ... but most of my listeners agree with. Private property rights. I believe, and nobody has presented me with any evidence to the contrary, that no political system based on liberty and economic freedom has ever survived once private property rights came to be ignored.

Now .. let me tell you a quick story about something called Fanplex. Fanplex was a the bright idea of some politicians representing a district adjoining Atlanta's Turner Field, the home of the Atlanta Braves. These politicians thought that if they built a miniature golf course and a game room adjacent to Turner Field suburban families would come pouring into downtown Atlanta, even when the Braves weren't playing, just to get in a game of Pac Man and some Putt Putt. As soon as the idea was proposed I began to slam it on the air. It wouldn't work. It would be a failure. The taxpayers would end up footing the bill. Well ... it didn't work. It was a failure and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill.

I bring this up because I want to create a scenario for you with just a few changes. In this case we're going to make it a private developer, not some hack politicians, who decide that some sort of a recreational facility would be a money-maker in some specific location. The private developer wants to build a skate board park, or a golf course, or baseball fields. There's a problem though. The private individuals who own the property the developer wants don't want to sell; or, if they do want to sell, they want more money than the developer is willing to pay. Wouldn't it be great if the developer could just go to his local government and tell them to seize the property? Yeah ... take that property, turn it over to me, and I'll build this nifty little skate park, or parking garage, or office building, or whatever .. and then I'll operate it for my own profit for about ten years and then I'll turn it over to you. Wouldn't that be cool?

Well, let me introduce you to SB5 .. a wonderful little piece of legislation now resting in the Georgia State Senate. SB5 is the brainchild of one Eric Johnson, a Republican from Savannah. Senator Johnson is the President Pro Tem of the Senate. He is also a Republican. Oh ... and I understand that he is a real estate developer. Eric Johnson wants any government entity in Georgia to be able to seize private property, your home, your office, your raw land, and turn it over to a private developer. Your property would then become an office building, a parking garage, a transportation facility, a baseball stadium, a telecommunications facility or any number of other wonderful things. It would then be operated by the developer for profit, and at some time in the future would be turned over to the government that condemned it.

Now, here's something rather interesting. The idea for this seizure of private property doesn't have to originate with the governmental entity! Under this law a private developer can just cruise around town until he finds a piece of property that he thinks would make a neat public facility. He then goes to his favorite politician and says something like "Look, Sam. I found this piece of property on the east side of town that I think would make a great government office building. The owner wants too much money. If you'll just seize this property and put it in my hands, I'll build that office building. I'll lease it out for about ten years, then I'll turn it over to you. Whaddaya think?"

Now ... let me tell you how clever Senator Johnson and his fellow property snatchers were in drafting this bill. They didn't want to use words like "government" and "developer," so they created some code words to use in the legislation. Here are some of those definitions straight from SB5.

"Operator." ... any person, other than a public entity, responsible for the development of any and all of the stages of a gualifying project or any portion thereof.

"Responsible public entity" a public entity that has the power to plan, design, develop, finance, acquire, install, construct, equip, maintain, improve, expand, repair or operate the applicable qualifying project.

Now, what is an "operator?" That is simply another word for "developer." "Qualifying project?" Just say "project." The "responsible public entity?" Just another way of saying "government."

I read this entire legislation last night, and I believe it to be a full scale assault launched by Georgia developers on the private property rights of Georgians. Under this law a developer can go to a government and ask for a plot of land to be seized so that the developer can build "any property which any public entity is authorized to construct, erect, acquire, own, repair, remodel, maintain, addto, extend, improve, equip, operate or manage" under the laws of Georgia. That's pretty broad, isn't it? Governments in Georgia can own apartments and office buildings. Connect the dots.

This law has the backing of some of the most powerful people in state government. It will only die if the people of this state make it clear to their elected representatives that this blatant assault on private property rights will not go unnoticed.

I posted this yesterday and do so again today because it appears relevant.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that local and state governments may not seize private property under their eminent domain power and give it to another private user.

In other words, the local government can’t take your home, land or business and give it to a strip mall, a car dealership, a high-tech company or any other private property owner.

The unanimous ruling on July, 30, 2004 returned common sense to private property ownership, reined in political hacks stealing property to reward friends or well-heeled connections and built a clear wall between the legal concepts of private property and public use.

“We overrule Poletown,” the Court wrote, “in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law.”

This statement indicates that Michigan’s highest court has rediscovered its constitutional and traditional role as interpreter of law, not creative writer of law.

The County of Wayne v. Hathcock ruling overturned the infamous Poletown decision made by the same court in 1981.

Back then, the city of Detroit wanted to bulldoze the Poletown neighborhood and clear it for a GM auto plant. Some rebellious property owners rejected the city’s offer for their homes and the idea of seeing their homes and property seized and given to another private owner, so the city moved ahead with condemnation under eminent domain.

Detroit argued before the Michigan Supreme Court that seizing the property would be a “public good” because it would bring more cash to the city’s coffers. This, of course, is an outlandish and illegal rewriting of the constitution by a prior Michigan court. The key here is expanding the phrase “public use” into the “public good.” Public use is taking property to build roads and schools for the public to use. Public good is stealing property based on ever-changing political whims for shopping malls, open space and biological diversity.

Nonetheless, the court in 1981 thought this theft was a swell idea and ruled that it was okay to bulldoze 465 acres, destroying 1,400 homes, 140 businesses, and several churches.

Critics contended that this seizure destroyed more jobs than it created. Time proved them right. At its height, the plant employed less than 60 percent of the workers that the conniving politicians had promised.

In the July ruling, the court correctly studied this matter from the view of original intent. In other words, what did the lawmakers originally mean when the law was written?

Justice Robert Young called this seizure of property under Poletown “a radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles.”

“In this case,” wrote the court, “Wayne County intends to transfer the condemned properties to private parties in a manner wholly inconsistent with the common understanding of ‘public use’ at the time our Constitution was ratified.”

The court rejected the argument of local governments that “a private entity’s pursuit of profit was a ‘public use’ for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity’s profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy.” Taking private property for the benefit of private investors is wrong.

Property owners are calling the decision a great day for property rights nationwide. It restores the rights of all Michiganders to keep their homes and businesses, even if another politically connected private business wants them. It makes citizens greater masters over their affairs and allows them to build their dreams on that private property without fearing it might be seized by corrupt politicians.

For centuries governments used eminent domain to seize private property for a rational public use, such as building roads and schools. Poletown expanded the meaning of “use” to “public good” and who or what can provide a greater economic benefit on a piece of land. Public good is nothing more than an American version of the Marxist “common good,” where government thieves steal private property to engage in socialist engineering to appease the whims of the state.

The definition “public good” could be expanded infinitely to be whatever the politicians wanted it to mean. Little concern was given to free enterprise, individual choice, limited government and constitutional protections against overbearing government.

Poletown, essentially, laid people’s private property before unknown political winds, where ownership is perpetually subject to some politician’s belief that another private party could use a piece of property “better.” Private property has no meaning if it can be taken and given to another owner at any time. This theft ends now, at least in Michigan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.