USDA Policy Statement on Sustainable Development
Guiding Principles for USDA Sustainable Development
USDA Council on Sustainable Development
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PC
Actually it would appear that such prohibition won't soon happen in Minnesota, anyways...so it is NOT being "dealt with." And what makes you think legislation will be accorded any more weight than a CONSTITUTIONAL right? We already had a case here which tested the Minnesota Constitutional provision, which was explicit, yet here was that result:
Don't leave basic rights to politicians
St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | Jul. 05, 2005 | LEE MCGRATH
Can the city government use eminent domain to condemn your home and turn it over to a private company that promises to pay more taxes? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that it can.
In Kelo v. City of New London, the court ruled that Susette Kelo and six other property owners will be forced to lose their homes so that local Connecticut officials can attract private companies to stimulate economic development and generate more tax receipts.
The Minnesota Supreme Court came to a similar conclusion in Minneapolis v. Wurtele holding that the public-use test was met by the city's plan to increase tax revenues on "properties (that) were not contributing to the tax base to their full potential." That questionable decision led to Minnesota's Court of Appeals holding, in City of Richfield v. Walser Auto Sales, that the Minneapolis-suburb could take 70 homes and three small businesses, and re-sell the land to Best Buy, a large company that promised to pay greater property taxes in the future. Tragically, a functioning neighborhood was leveled by a promise of more taxes.
Based on these decisions, no home, small business or church in Minnesota is safe because there is always a bigger business or home that promises to pay more taxes. In the name of "economic development," cities are now free to do almost anything that city planners can dream up. In his June 29 column, Craig Westover frowns on people using the courts to protect rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Instead, the otherwise-insightful Westover suggests "action by the Minnesota Legislature ought to be the prime option for countering Kelo." And voters "hold the leash on government officials" because voters can "yank" them from office.
At best, his reasoning is only half-right. Most homeowners and small-business owners live in towns and cities where elected officials will sacrifice all principles for more tax receipts. And you don't have to look far to find examples. Less-principled politicians took properties in Richfield for Best Buy's campus. Officials in New Brighton are misusing eminent domain to condemn a small business' land for high-end condos. And in Champlin, an elderly couple that has lived there for 28 years faces condemnation because their home is, in the mayor's words, on "prime real estate" for luxury condos, a restaurant and a marina.
Constitutional protections constrain political power against the wishes of the majority. Saying there's nothing to worry about because abuses of political power can be addressed in the next election misses the point of having constitutionally protected rights. The Bill of Rights and Article I of Minnesota's Constitution limit the power of the majority to gain benefits from the minority. Elected-government officials are, by definition, creatures of majorities. Only the most principled politician stands up for a minority in the face of a majority demanding its way. And, as the founders understood, our precious freedoms cannot be entrusted to this most rare of creatures.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Minnesota Constitution require that eminent domain may only be employed for a "public use." The founders included the "public use" requirement to limit the power of eminent domain to projects that the public owns, uses and has permanent access to. They understood without it, the politically connected would use their influence to take any property for any private use they want. They also understood that an election conducted after the fact is no remedy for abuse of public power.
In Kelo, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional responsibilities to protect a fundamental right in America — the right to one's home and property. Minnesota courts can and should re-establish the Minnesota Constitution's protection of property rights. Given public reaction to the Kelo decision and with three new justices, the state Supreme Court may welcome a case that revisits the issues in Walser.
Now is also the time for all Minnesotans to stand up for their right to keep their homes and small businesses. Westover is right that they should demand that their elected leaders in both their city councils and at the Capitol respect the Constitution and pass legislation that restricts eminent domain to truly public uses.
But more importantly, Minnesotans should never forfeit their constitutional rights—including the right to go into court to protect precious freedoms against the whims of politicians serving the majority.
McGrath is the executive director of the Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter. His law firm represented the property owners in Kelo.