Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R) on March 17 signed into law Senate Bill 184, effectively preventing the exercise of eminent domain authority by redevelopment agencies, which otherwise had the power to transfer land from one private entity to another. Local governments may still use eminent domain for more traditionally defined and understood "public purposes."
A damn good start. Eminent domain itself is bad enough, but using it as an excuse for economic "development" is no more than using the power of government to steal property from one and give it to another: it's no more than a particularly evil form of welfare. And just how bad is the situation?
The Utah bill is in many ways a prelude to the issue soon to be decided in the federal courts. In the Kelo case, the Supreme Court is deciding whether a local government can use its eminent domain power to seize property from one private party and transfer it to another private party. The seven plaintiffs in Kelo are property owners whose homes and small businesses were "condemned" by the city of New London solely for the purpose of helping a prospective developer acquire 90 acres of land.According to New London officials, condemnation and taking of the property by eminent domain is necessary not because the property is uncared-for or a nuisance, but because the new development would support more jobs and create more city tax revenues than the current homes and small businesses.
According to Alex Epstein, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property. The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, California 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?'"
As reported by Epstein, Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner put the issue in more personal terms. "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe. Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business, and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."
Yes, you read that right: government-coerced transfers of property from one private owner to another, ten thousand times between 1998 and 2002. That's ten thousand, as in, a lot.
Do you own your own home? Vacation cottage? The building in which you operate your business? Really, you think so? Remember that Utah is the very first state to enact such pro-property, eminent-domain-limiting legislation, and that courts at all levels traditionally have sided with governments over property owners.
Now: do you still think you really own your home? By whose leave? You might want to watch the Supreme Court for its decision in the Kelso case.
(Hat tip: Google News Alerts)
Posted by Craig Ceely at June 4, 2005 11:26 PM