Posted on 09/22/2005 3:51:03 AM PDT by Santiago de la Vega
Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers called for national reform of eminent domain policy on Tuesday, the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee heard witnesses offer their appraisals of the Supreme Court's recent decision expanding the ability of government to seize private land.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Without this power, a single individual could - and would - continue to raise the price of his property above fair market value till the owner had extracted all the value of the intended public good.
Given the productivity of public goods - as opposed to a Wal-Mart - this would bring the property owner all the benefits that should be going to the people.
Remember, this power is reserved for legitimate public goods, things that benefit everyone in society, not just another bit of private enterprise that will generate tax revenues.
It's sad that the Supreme Court has so little understanding of the difference between Public Goods and Private Enterprise that they would essentially allow anything the government wants.
This is a repudiation of the Constitution and must be reversed.
For too long, a Democratic Senate has followed Emperor Roosevelt's dictum that the SC does what the politicians want. That must change.
The recent eminent domain ruling is roundly hated by almost everybody. I snoop around at DU occasionaly and they hate it too. Only they place the blame on "rich Republicans".
So Darth Bader is a rich Republican? Souter's a rich Republican? Etc, etc, etc. They were appointed by a rich Republican?! What are the folks over at DU smoking?!
Okay. So, how do we go about this, short of a revolution (with guns) to re-establish the Constitution as the law of the land?
Everyone in the nation refuses to pay their taxes and let's the gov't prosecute all 200 million of us. Tell them that we'll pay up when reforms are installed.
No pay for congress/senate/POTUS
Term limits
No pension for congcritters, senate, POTUS.
Fair Tax replaces prog.
NO UN!
Closed borders and STRICT immigration laws ENFORCED to the letter.
Which is exactly what should happen in an eminent domain mandated transfer between private parties. Often the so-called fair market value offered in such a forced transfer is at the present use value, not the intended use value.
Using eminent domain powers to force transfers between private parties is just plain wrong.
Philosophical question regarding eminent domain:
As conservatives, we prefer that as many services as possible be handled in the private sector rather than by government beaurocrats. This includes railroads and utilities. However, as conservatives we oppose using eminent domain to take private property for a private development. This leads to a problem in one particular class of entities: utilities (including railroads). Here's a scenerio:
A publicly owned and operated electric company can use eminent domain (or have its owning municipality use eminent domain) to obtain property to build a new transmission line and substation. Nobody seems to argue with this concept. The problem is that in many parts of the country, the electric company is a privately owned enterprise. Should they be allowed to use eminent domain to do the exact same thing?
In growing cities (generally the south and midwest) the electric infrastructure needs grow to meet the demands. For a power company, that means property will be needed for transmission lines and substations. A publicly owned utility beaurocracy (which we don't like) can use eminent domain whereas a privately owned utility enterprise (which we do like) cannot.
How do we address this problem?
What about railroads?
The dissenters in the Kelo decision did not argue that it was always wrong for the government to transfer property from one private owner to another, and agreed with two prior SCOTUS rulings (condemnation of a blighted area in Washington dc, and also the transfer of property in Hawaii to dilute a landholding monopoly).
Moreover, they also agreed with transfer of private land to private railroads.
For the dissenters in Kelo, the key issue was whether the State of Connecticut's takings really qualified as a a legitimate "public use" under the takings clause of the 5th Amendment.
They argued that in the Kelo case, the public would not be using the property (as in the case of a railroad, for example).
They also argued that the SCOTUS majority had erred in Kelo and in other cases by ruling that the strict meaning of "public use" was properly expanded to include the more nebulous concept of "public purpose."
Give the landowner a cut of the profits for using their land. If 1% of the electric company's power goes through those lines, then the individual should receive a "dividend" for the powerlines on their land. This is only ofcourse if the landowner agrees to it.
Kelo is a radical revision of the common understanding of the rights that individuals own in their private property. It strips away these rights in favor of the government common good.
It attempts to push us and our property into a socialist scheme where the interest of the group trumps the right of the individual. In a collective socialist society, individuals are expected to bow to government and contribute their money, their property and their labor for the goals of the imperial state. Kelo does this.
This, of course, is in direct opposition to American individual freedoms as stated in the Bill of Rights. The founding documents are a written contract to assure that the bundled individual freedoms owned by the citizen are not trampled by any group favored by government. The law is meant to protect people from unjust encroachment by others.
In Kelo, that contract was destroyed when the court held an illegal constitutional convention and rewrote the plain words of the 5th amendment: “...nor shall private property be taken for public use...”
The court deleted the phrase public use and scribbled in “public benefit.” Public benefit can mean anything, to anyone, at any time. Public benefit is simply the American version of the Marxist “common good.” Nothing more.
The five so-called justices who voted for this theft should be impeached, found guilty of sedition and removed from United States soil - permanently.
i hear a lot of shouting, pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth, but I DON'T SEE ANYTHING BEING DONE!!!
we're being given lip service - the politicians are merely reassuring us until the storm blows over, then they'll continue as before - they really don't want to give up on this power.
that said, i'd like to see a sentence or two inserted in any ED reform act to ensure that the land will be used for it's intended purposes within a reasonable time - or returned to it';s former owners with any monies spent by the city considered rent.
ED ought to be a last resort, and used very rarely. And we don't want people seizing private lands for one purpose, sitting on them for a spell, then using the land for something else.
however I remain skeptical that anything real will occur. whenever a politician tells you that something is "difficult" or "Not so easy" or "takes time", they are stalling until you go away.
Does "public use" require public ownership?
Excellent question.
The problem is one of economies of size, also called economies of scale, or natural monopolies. You only need one company to do this work, and you want them to charge break-even prices.
The example I use is the railroad over the Sierra. We only needed one, and allowing private ownership generated monopoly profits for the owners. They abused their pricing power and earned the title "robber barons."
The government went along with the scheme because it's easier to tax one company than all the little ones that use the railroad.
The alternative, as we've seen, is to allow government ownership of the rails, subcontract out the maintenance to private enterprise, and allow the users to pay a fee.
Remember, the government should not be in any business and should only exercise its fiduciary responsibilities.
This is the "public utility" model.
The key to success is first, government ownership, and second, private maintenance and use.
This model can be used for all goods and services that have the features of a "natural monopoly."
Anything else is the province of private enterprise.
The only reason the government engages in private enterprise is to buy votes.
It would seem so to me. Public parks are not owned by a private entity. But there are exceptions to the rule i'm sure.
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.