Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Eminent-domain abuse widespread
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, April 22, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 04/22/2003 12:00:39 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

If you believe your home is your castle or that the government can only take it for public use, you should be warned otherwise, says a public-interest law firm that documented thousands of cases nationwide where governments have abused eminent domain.

The report, titled "Public Power, Private Gain," is the first of its kind nationwide to document how often government confiscates private property and hands it over to private developers, says the Institute For Justice, a libertarian-oriented firm based in Washington, D.C.

"This report is a wake-up call to all citizens," says Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the institute and author of the report. "Your property can be taken away by the unholy alliance of government and business interests. It is happening all over the country, and it can happen to you."

In the report, Berliner discusses more than 10,000 cases where homes, businesses, churches and private land were seized or threatened with seizure over the past five years – not to be used for public use, but instead for private for-profit development.

The concept of eminent domain is defined as the right of government to take private property for public use "by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction," according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation" to the owner.

Among the examples cited by the report include the condemnation of a family's home so that the manager of a planned golf course could live in it; the eviction of four elderly siblings from their home of six decades for a private industrial park; and the removal of a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years, allegedly to expand a sewer plant but in actuality to give her home to an automobile dealership.

The report said that since 1998 there have been 10,282-plus filed or threatened condemnations for private parties with reports of actual or threatened condemnation for private parties coming from 41 states.

John Kramer, vice president for communications, said the institute would release its findings to the public today at the National Press Club in Washington.

Besides the federal Constitution, the firm says every state's constitution also imposes similar eminent domain restrictions on government.

"In America, private property can only be taken for a public use, not for a private use," the institute said, in a statement.

But, as the report denotes, "state and local governments believe they can condemn anything for any purpose, no matter how blatantly private," the statement continued.

States with the worst record of private-use condemnations, the firm said, are California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio. Runners-up include Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey.

Cities with the worst record are Detroit, Riviera Beach, Fla., San Jose, Calif., and Philadelphia.

"From a legal standpoint," the institute said, the worst states in which to live for property owners seeking to avoid condemnation are New York, Missouri and Kansas.

But the institute's report also contained some good news for property owners: "The best states [to avoid condemnation of property] are Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming, none of which had any reported eminent domain for private use."

In its February 2003 issue, Reason Magazine published a story chronicling eminent domain abuses. It said some property owners are getting legal satisfaction, but that those cases could be the exception.

"Despite recent victories, the courts are unlikely to be much help in reining in abuses of eminent domain," the magazine reported. "In fact, many of the recent victories against eminent-domain abuse have resulted from nonjudicial remedies."

Not everyone agrees eminent domain is being abused.

"The fact is that in the average community in the typical state, the system is working well," claims the American Planning Association, a nonprofit public interest and research organization, Reason magazine reported. "Property-rights advocates are waging a guerrilla war of sound bites, misleading 'spin doctoring' and power politics which characterizes government at every level as evil empires of bad intent."

Critics argue that sometimes eminent domain is needed so local governments and private real estate partners can move quickly on development projects.

"Eminent domain is critical for local redevelopment efforts," says John Bowers, executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development. "Without it, it would be virtually impossible for a city to assemble a multi-parcel piece of property for redevelopment."

In August, the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute addressed eminent-domain abuse in Arizona.

"Despite strong protections for private property in the Arizona Constitution, municipalities increasingly have been taking private property from landowners for use by other private citizens and by corporations," the institute said, in a statement. "These abuses of eminent-domain power have been enabled in recent years by the 1997 redevelopment statute."

Berliner says the most common excuse for abusing eminent domain is for governments and developers to cite "community" betterment, a concept he says doesn't exist.

"Communities have no rights (to execute private-use condemnation) – not under natural law, not under common law and not under the Constitution," he says, even if most local people favor a particular development project. "It was to prevent just such abuses, the tyranny of majority over minority, that the Founders wrote our Constitution."




TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; landgrab; propertyrights; reuters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Quote of the Day by Texas Eagle

1 posted on 04/22/2003 12:00:39 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I like to call it Pervasive Eminent Domain Abuse, or PEDA for short. Its practitioners - why, PEDAphiles, of course. use that word to describe them, and expose them for the sleazebags that they are!
2 posted on 04/22/2003 12:09:20 AM PDT by coydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
marking for later
3 posted on 04/22/2003 12:25:35 AM PDT by djreece
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"From a legal standpoint," the institute said, the worst states in which to live for property owners seeking to avoid condemnation are New York, Missouri and Kansas.

Court: County can make landowners sell property for economic growth

04/19/2003 - The Associated Press

Kansas counties may force private landowners to sell property to be used for industrial and economic development projects, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday. The decision was the first by the court on whether counties may exercise the power of eminent domain -- often used when land is needed for roads or utility lines -- to acquire land specifically for economic development.

In its unanimous ruling, the court said such forced sales to counties are legal under the 1974 "home rule" statute, which lets counties govern their affairs without needing to have every power listed in state law.

Friday's decision arose from a case in Shawnee County, where the county commission passed a resolution last year to acquire 400 acres south of Topeka for an industrial park. Target Corp. plans to build a distribution center on part of the site.

Nine of the affected property owners sold their land, but Robert Tolbert and his company, General Building Contractors LLC, refused to sell seven acres they owned.

A judge affirmed the county's right to take Tolbert's land by eminent domain, for which Tolbert and the company received $329,000. Tolbert's appeal resulted in Friday's Supreme Court ruling on counties' authority to take land for economic development purposes.

"Counties have and may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for industrial or economic development purposes," retired Justice Edward Larson wrote for the court.

The Supreme Court also clarified that the proper procedure calls for a county commission to pass and publish a resolution stating its intent to take a property by eminent domain.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041903/bus_court.shtml


4 posted on 04/22/2003 12:43:26 AM PDT by KS Flyover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
States with the worst record of private-use condemnations, the firm said, are California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio. Runners-up include Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey.

Here in Stockton, California, the city acquired a city block to build "The Gateway to the City" project. This block was located at the major offramp to the downtown area on the Cross Town Freeway and was on a major route from the Stockton Airport into town. The argument was that Stockton needed a more impressive entry to the city that reflected our mutli-ethnic background. It would, in the words of one of our local re-development types, "be a source of pride and a showcase for our city."

Displaced through the city's power of Eminent Domain were several low-income residential hotels (eyesores but providing affordable housing for people who could not otherwise be housed), several small businesses including a grocery, a bar, a liquor store, and one of the finest Mexican Restaurants in the city... well established and popular... that had been operated for years by a Immigrant Mexican family (legal immigrants, 2nd generation).

After forcing the owners to shut down and sell, razing the buildings and turning the block into an empty lot, the city sold the land to a developer for development of the Gateway Project that would be the welcoming sight to visitors to Stockton.

What was built on the site? A MacDonalds and a Gulf Service Station mini-mart! Both facades have a California Mission appearance... but where is the "source of pride?" And does Stockton REALLY want to showcase our city as being a place that is so generic as to consider a MacDonalds and a Gulf Service Station Mini-mart a showcase to impress tourists and visitors?

If the "Gateway Project" was to feature commercial establishments, what better business could have been chosen but the already established Mexican Restaurant? It could have been upgraded, beautified and made the centerpiece of a truly impressive block of shops of all the ethnicities that Stockton is home to... instead we got a gas station and a fast-food emporium... so generic that it says nothing. Eminent Domain... bah.

5 posted on 04/22/2003 1:03:31 AM PDT by Swordmaker (Tagline Extermination Services, franchises available, small investment, big profit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
This is not to mention the seizure of private property for such public uses as "viewshed"; i.e. it must be kept--or made--pristine, so that radical environmentalists can have a pleasant view as they drive by. (Nevermind that your house happens to be on it. Too bad for you!)
6 posted on 04/22/2003 2:30:35 AM PDT by Savage Beast (Never underestimate the cruelty of a burocrat with a vision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Here in Pennsylvania, we had a near-miss in terms of emminent domain. A family owned a building in town, which happened to be next to the Public Library. The Borough coveted the building, first as a location for a new Borough Building, then as space to expand the public library.

The family didn't want to sell - the building is always fully rented to commercial ventures. The Borough did all its research preparing to take the land by emminent domain. The only hitch was when they found out the had to buy out the leases of the current tenants and find them comparable commercial space - the leases had just been renewed for 7-10 years. The Borough didn't want to wait out the leases getting closer to expiration, and made an offer to the family that was at least marginally acceptable to them (although below fair market value). I guess once you've been told it'll be taken, an offer may look better than it did before.

Most citizen's of the town wanted the library moved to where there was parking, but the Borough was determined not to let it out of downtown (another example of their arrogance).

The Borough never saw anything wrong with the use of emminent domain to get what they wanted - a state of the art public library in the heart of a college town. They only saw the price would be higher than they wanted to pay. They had bought all the properties surrounding this one over previous decade at top market prices, but didn't want to pay that for the final "gem".

Our property rights are being eroded daily through governments arrogant use of emminent domain as well as the power to regulate. While there is a level of regulation that is necessary for health and safety, most of what we see today is regulation in pursuit of building a utopian "community", to control where and how people live. Emminent Domain to them is just another tool in the toolbox to use in building the perfect community...
7 posted on 04/22/2003 3:00:00 AM PDT by Kay Ludlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *landgrab; madfly
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
8 posted on 04/22/2003 6:35:27 AM PDT by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The prospects for rolling back the abuse of the eminent domain power are bleak. Communities all over the United States are accelerating their use of it. Sometimes the condemned property is put to public use, but frequently condemnation is a conduit to private hands, as was the case with that church in California whose name I've forgotten.

Here in New York, a lot of condemnations are rationalized by "open space" and similar conservationist / environmentalist pleadings. A private organization, the Nature Conservancy, has been involved in a growing fraction of these, possibly the majority. The Nature Conservancy receives state funds for the maintenance of a number of properties condemned under environmental initiatives.

Watch for ever newer and more ingenious redefinitions of "public use." This is the country, after all, that claimed that to grow corn on one's own land and feed it to one's own hogs constitutes "interstate commerce."

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

9 posted on 04/22/2003 7:19:03 AM PDT by fporretto (Curmudgeon Emeritus, Palace of Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; backhoe; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Libertarianize the GOP; freefly; 2sheep; expose; ...
Eminent Domain ping!

Try a google search for "Eminent Domain"

10 posted on 04/22/2003 10:37:49 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; Carry_Okie; forester; sasquatch; B4Ranch; SierraWasp; hedgetrimmer; christie; comwatch; ...
Pinging the short list.
11 posted on 04/22/2003 10:42:21 AM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Property Rights PING
12 posted on 04/22/2003 10:51:01 AM PDT by TonyWojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
13 posted on 04/22/2003 10:54:55 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; madfly; sauropod; editor-surveyor
"The report, titled "Public Power, Private Gain," is the first of its kind nationwide to document how often government confiscates private property and hands it over to private developers"

JH2, These "public private partnerships" are a crime against humanity, and should be prosecuted under RICO. The ORGANIZED crime unit. Peace and love, George.

14 posted on 04/22/2003 11:00:06 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KS Flyover
In its unanimous ruling, the court said such forced sales to counties are legal under the 1974 "home rule" statute, which lets counties govern their affairs without needing to have every power listed in state law.

Not that the citizens needn't have every right delineated but that the counties needn't have every power listed. Cripes.

15 posted on 04/22/2003 11:05:09 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Take Richard Daley and the case of The Pacific Garden Mission. The PGM has been at its current location just south of the Loop in downtown Chicago since I was a boy and visited it with my parents to listen to the live radio broadcast of "Unshackled". Since those days that part of Chicago has become increasingly regentrified so that now the PGM property has become very valuable and is right in the middle of a very, very hot area, a couple of blocks from the Chicago Public Library, a few blocks from the Loop, a few blocks from Grant Park, the Chicago Art Institute, lots of theaters, the museum campus housing the Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and Adler Planetarium, as well as the former Meigs Field. Daley "offered" PGM $7 million to relocate to some warehouse in another part of the city. PGM refused, saying it wanted $28 million (probably more in line with projected property values). Daley responded with a suit to have the property seized on his own terms. So much for people being able to hold out for the highest dollar for their own property. Little city Napoleons will just use the power of government to spoliate the citizenry:
From The Sun-Times:

Mayor Daley took potshots at Chicago's oldest and largest homeless shelter Wednesday for standing in the way of a long-stalled expansion at Jones College Prep High School.

Daley said the city has made a generous offer to relocate the 126-year-old Pacific Garden Mission, 646 S. State, and it ought to be accepted.

The mission has agreed to make the move from the fast-growing South Loop neighborhood, where the mayor lives, to a 205,000 square foot warehouse at 1001 S. Clinton that has no residential neighbors. But officials are holding out for more money.

"Six million dollars is a lot of money. Give me a break . . . This is taxpayers' money. I could give 'em $100 million, but I'm sorry," the mayor said.

"We're gonna relocate them . . . We've had a number of locations for them. We have been working with them for many years. But they're very successful. They have a huge trust account. Find out how much they have in their trust account."

-------

As for the city's relocation offer, McCarrell seems resigned to let the courts decide. Last month, the Chicago Board of Education filed a lawsuit against the mission to try to break a stalemate that has prevented Jones College Prep from building a $15.5 million gym and library on the mission site.

McCarrell argued that the city's offer "doesn't begin to pay anywhere near what it would cost to move this ministry to another location without hindering what we do and the outreach we have. The owner is asking over three times that amount just for the building."

16 posted on 04/22/2003 11:20:22 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coydog; All
Funny, I just received my summons to appear in court today from Louisiana Gas System, INC a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips to expropriate a permanent servitude for a separator station and tank battery as a necessary appurtenance and apparatus to its Louisiana Gas Pipeline System.

My family owns property that has leased land to conoco for 20 years for their pipeline and separator station to the local area industries. The lease expired last month and they refuse to renegotiate and made a paltry offer. It was way under the value of the property.

Why is it okay for these corporations to make a huge profit off of their product and the landowners who provide what they need to produce their product can't?
17 posted on 04/22/2003 11:25:36 AM PDT by CajunConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CajunConservative
Why is it okay for these corporations to make a huge profit off of their product and the landowners who provide what they need to produce their product can't?

C'mon now, Huey Long set the precedent for that long ago.

18 posted on 04/22/2003 12:11:46 PM PDT by jimt (Is your church BATF approved?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Thanks for the ping. I saw one of the post that said that Ohio amungst others was one of the worse. I believe it! Even water rights issues are abused. I look out my front window at a water treatment plant from Delaware, Ohio (next county south) that is drilling and pumping water to Delaware and Columbus. Because there are no laws to protect water as a natural resource, our precious water is being stolen, and our wells going dry and we can do nothing about it. Eminent domain spreds to water rights too. Sad!!
19 posted on 04/22/2003 6:13:12 PM PDT by Harleys Mom (I remember 9-11-01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
You got that right! I am one of those fighting the "Viewshed" BS!
20 posted on 04/23/2003 8:10:59 AM PDT by countrydummy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson