The Pirates Of Eminent Domain (Jeff Jacoby On The Future Of Private Property Rights In America)

Townhall.com ^ | 02/28/05 | Jeff Jacoby

[goldstategop]

Property rights have a questionable future in America today. The prevailing thought is it can be taken for anything the government wants - regardless of whether there's a public use for it at all. Will it be secured for future generations? The fate of more than just seven Connecticut homeowners rest on how the U.S Supreme Court reads the oft-ignored "public use" requirement under the Fifth Amendment. Without guarantee of the use and enjoyment of private property, all other rights become a mere privilege. That's why its so important to stop the abuse of eminent domain and restrain the powers of government - that terrible master.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[GeronL]

Its happening all over the place, here down here in Texas

[agitator]

The state figures it's *their* property. We just rent it from them anyway, right?

[Robert Drobot]

In the Klamath Basin/Klamath Falls region of Oregon as well. It's court decreed stealing......the kind of iron-fisted oligarchy collusion that brought about the American Revolution.

[GeronL]

I remember the Klamath thing with the water. THAT water is supposed to be owned by the farmers.

[Robert Drobot]

Government's written promises have never been worth the paper used to write them.

They did it to the American Indian; we said nothing.

They are doing it to an emasculated America; we no longer have the backbone to stop them.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

As long as just compensation is paid respect has been shown for property rights. It might be nice if more respect was paid to a right to be left alone or a right to not have decisions made for you. Environmental laws, zoning and land-use regulations actually redefine property rights without compensation for lost utility or economic value. Property taxes must be continually paid in order to exercise the privilege of property ownership. Both regulation and taxes have more impact on decisions about property ownership and property values than does concern about the possible use of eminent domain.

The necessity of paying just compensation will significantly limit the application of eminent domain. State Legislatures should be empowered and trusted to decide what is a public use. I think super majority requirements for any significant projects would be appropriate. If the overwhelming majority of citizens in the local community accept that the project is a good idea and that the compensation is fair then it meets all Fifth Amendment requirements.

[GeronL]

well, the people at Klamath had backbone

[Robert Drobot]

.....the government nearly shut off all of the water..... farmers couldn't survive. They came close to taking over the dam controls, but backed down. A taxpayer (government) sponsored - privately held animal refuge/environmental protection group has been buying up the property for pennies on the dollar. Their intent? Deny complete human access to the area to return the place to a pristine wildlife refuge.

[lowbridge]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that's a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what's wrong with trying to "build it up and get more jobs?" If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can't it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn't that enough to satisfy the Constitution's "public use" requirement?

Say, I have a great place to locate a new Home Depot. It's right on the property of where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg currently owns and resides. And as for that new that new Wal-Mart, Souters home is the perfect place for it. Oh, and Breyer's house is just absolutely right for the new Target store I'm planing to build as well. Say, Justice Breyer, you wouldn't mind vacating the place, would ya? I have much more important things to do with it. What? You mind very much? Well, it doesn't matter what you think. The city council and a few Justices on the Supreme Court are backing me up on this.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Say, I have a great place to locate a new Home Depot. It's right on the property of where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg currently owns and resides.

LOL

[teeman8r]

it is that way in maryland, where environmentalists have given the government cart blanc with the phrase, "best management practices"...

look for the supremes to render a less than ideal solution for private property rights advocates.

teeman

[pfony1]

I doubt you should hang your hat on the phrase "...just compensation...".

I mean, aren't you somewhat cynical regarding just what is it that makes a "market-value", which is estimated by a government-paid appraiser, "just"?

IMHO, the "just price" is that price which is accepted by BOTH the prospective buyer and the prospective seller in a voluntary transaction. You know: a "free-market" transaction.

Therefore, I think the "taking of property by right of eminent domain" should be seen for exactly what it is: an attempt to acquire private property WITHOUT paying "...just compensation...".

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The drafters of the Constitution and the bill of rights did not agree with you or they would not have included "just compensation."

[pfony1]

I see that you have much more confidence in the "integrity" of government than I do.

But the situation in New London is really that:

(1) A private developer wants to buy some private property, which a by-the-numbers appraiser values at $X.

(2) The developer fears that the property owners, due perhaps to personal histories, emotions and sentiments, may place values higher than $X on the property. And the developer does not want to pay such higher prices to get the property.

(3) So the developer finds a way to induce(*) some politicians to "condemn" the private property, using "eminent domain" as a "justification" and the low-ball "appraised value" of $X as a proxy for "just compensation".

(4) The developer then buys the property at its desired price ($X) -- plus whatever baksheesh(*) the developer has agreed to pay the politicians to induce them to exercise their political power to condemn the private property.

(5) The developer has profited. The politicians have profited. But the original property owners have LOST, due to a clear abuse of the government's "taking" power.

As I read it, such abuses are expressly limited by our Bill of Rights.


I understand that this real-world analysis might not apply to a town governed by "Philosopher-Kings".

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Is it better to allow only lawyers and just a handful of self anointed interpreters of the Constitution to be the sole source for granting and defining our rights? Our elected State Government leaders should be responsible for defining public use and just compensation. An effective way for a State Legislature to limit the abuse of eminent domain would be a super majority requirement of local residents. I trust my neighbors and my ability to influence my neighbors in order to protect my rights. I have no ability to influence the Supreme Court. If we can't get most Citizens in most all of the Country to respect rights then we are in trouble.

[pfony1]

IMHO, an effective way to limit the abuse of eminent domain is to prevent government entities from acting as "real estate agents" for private interests.

Perhaps a time-limitation to restrict the resale or lease of any property acquired adversely using the right of eminent domain would suffice.

However, if the US Supreme Court decides that government officials make use the full power of the government to "take" private property for any purpose whatsoever -- then we ARE in trouble.

[steve-b]

Our elected State Government leaders should be responsible for defining public use and just compensation.

In your world they'd all be vying to hire the world's leading expert on creating politically convenient definitions (I refer of course to Bill Clinton).

No -- words have objective meanings, and taking from A to give to B simply does not fit within the objective meaning of the words "public use" no matter how many politicians say otherwise.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

So you prefer to allow a handful of Supreme Court Justices define what rights you enjoy and what rights government can ignore?

[evilC]

>>>
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that's a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what's wrong with trying to "build it up and get more jobs?" If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can't it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn't that enough to satisfy the Constitution's "public use" requirement?
<<<

The real fight over court apointments shouldn't be about abortion, it should be about property rights. The wrong apointment (i.e. a Justice weak on property rights) could do untold damage.