The Tyranny of Eminent Domain

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | Friday, February 18, 2005 | By: Larry Salzman and Alex Epstein

[BlackjackPershing]

The idea of private property is under fire from all corners, within and without the United States. This is one stark example.

[blackeagle]

bump

[SoDak]

eminent domain is a power that has got to be reeled in.

[Carry_Okie]

As long as the Ayn Rand Institute can't explain how the citizens of that beautiful valley managed the tailings from Francisco d'Aconia's copper mine, they have no solutions to government takings.

I can. You can tell that to Yaron Brook, who just doesn't have time (too busy raising money).

[Mears]

I saw what eminent domain did in my city in the early sixties.. I HATE it.

[SoDak]

Almost anytime a beaureaucrat thinks he knows a better use for YOUR land than you, you're about to have your freedom zapped. Private property rights are the foundation of our liberty.

[Sisku Hanne]

Is there anything one can do to preemptively protect their property from being seized in the future? Say some sort of trust or have it designated under some sort of preservation?
I am seeing this very thing happen to a beautiful scenic property near where I live. (Rumor has it it once was in John Wayne's family.)

[Just A Nobody]

This is not new. In the 70's & 80's, the city of Willoughby Ohio tried to pull eminent domain on an old lady that had a sheep farm. She left her doors open & the sheep would wander in & out of the house. Her farm was at a huge intersection. Somehow she won. The last I knew in '98 she was still there. A hospital, a shopping center, several restaurants & medical office buildings & a high rise apartment complex surrounded her. Sad, funny & true.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The government takes property by force from people every day of the year and then gives to people who have done nothing to earn it. And their is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows them, or even hints at the power to do so.

So, here is my take: if the SC rules that the power of eminent domain does NOT extend to seizing property and transferring to another for the "greater good of the public", then there is a good chance that the same argument could be made for eliminating all forms of wealth transferrance.

OTOH, if the rule against the property owners, then you can just forget that there is any limitations on the government whatsoever.

[Ancient_Pistoll]

The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99¢ Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"

OK Mr. Lawyer sir, let's take your comparison one step farther, I would wager that Bill Gates pays more in taxes than you, so should you be run over by a bulldozer because of that?

[natewill]

If anyone is looking for a few good books on the subject, I just started reading 'This Land Is Our Land' by Joseph Farah and Richard Pombo. Into the 2nd chapter and it promises to be informing and insightful.

[Alberta's Child]

In the context of the Kelo case, the idea that "the public interest" trumps private property rights simply means that the desires of some individuals for property they did not earn and cannot get from others voluntarily trump the rights of those who did earn it and do not want to sell it.

I can sympathize with property owners in cases like this, but wasn't this process of seizing property from one "owner" and giving to another who would "put it to more productive use" exactly what transpired when the U.S. government was chasing Indians all over the Plains?

[SedVictaCatoni]

And their is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows them, or even hints at the power to do so.

The power of eminent domain is specifically laid forth in the Fifth Amendment, which ensures that "private property" may not be taken "for public use without just compensation". This, again, obviously implies that private property may be taken for public use with just compensation.

The Constitutional issue here is whether attempting to improve the economy of a political jurisdiction qualifies as a "public use", and what standard should be applied to that qualification.

[aberaussie]

bttt

[zeugma]

OTOH, if the rule against the property owners, then you can just forget that there is any limitations on the government whatsoever.

THere aren't any limitations on government. There haven't been for many years. Many consider Waco to be an abject lesson of same. Anyone who believes the government has any real restraints on its power is living in a fantasy world.

[yooper]

"The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99¢ Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"

That's the part which is just plain wrong. Local government has NO BUSINESS condemning private property in order to inflate it's property tax revenue. Period.

Eminent Domain should only be exercised when it will demonstrably improve the general safety of ALL taxpayers.

[xzins]

Terrible abuse of eminent domain near the University of Cincinnati in the last few weeks. The gov't took a few private producing businesses across the street in a known productive area and gave them to a different group of developers who could produce more dollars.

I suspect they beat the doors down to get their ruling before this Supreme Court case got decided.

[Abcdefg]

P.J. O'Rourke said that the Constitution is not an impediment to our form of government.
He also said that giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a 15 year old boy.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.