BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

eminent domain Archive

Tuesday

28

February 2012

2

COMMENTS

Federalism vs. Eminent Domain

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Legislation, Liberty & Limited Government

The issue of eminent domain and the outrageous Kelo decision are what first drove me to start blogging. The idea that government goons could legally force people off their property for the benefit of private entities was enough to get my blood boiling – and still does. Thankfully, most states reacted to the troubled decision by enacting eminent domain protections, though not all were effective and many problems still remain.

Being debated before Congress today is the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012, a bill with bipartisan support which would prohibit a state “from exercising its power of eminent domain … over property to be used for economic development … if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.” Sounds wonderful, right? Well, not really.

I’ve written many times about both the benefits of federalism and the dangers of granting the federal government the right to use the disbursement of dollars to force states into specific policy choices. Such use of taxpayer money undermines the idea of separate jurisdictions of government authority, and the benefits we derive from it (the separation of powers between state and federal governments is equally as important as that between the executive, legislative and judicial branches), rendering the states as little more than regional magistrates of a central authority on which they are financially dependent. Ideally, the federal government should be sending no money to the states.

Without the jurisdictional competition of federalism, most people would see the majority of political decisions impacting their lives as being made in a far off Capitol completely out of touch with the challenges they face on a daily basis. The bill also “prohibits the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development,” which I wholeheartedly support, but it is not the place of the federal government to force states to do the same. That is the responsibility of the citizens and elected bodies of the respective states.

Friday

2

September 2011

1

COMMENTS

Years Later, Seized Land Used for Debris Dump

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

In 2005, Kelo v. City of New London made eminent domain infamous. The widely reviled Supreme Court ruling gave the go ahead for the city of New London to use eminent domain for taking private property in order that it be given to a private company for “economic development.”

The public response was one of outrage. Facing the potential wrath of voters,  politicians across the country moved to add new protections against such abusive seizures. But that wasn’t enough to save the homes of the folks in New London, whose property never would be developed. Pfizer, the intended beneficiary of the land theft, walked away years ago from their development plans.

Now, to add new insult to injury, the vacant lot is a dump. Literally.

Following hurricane Irene, the city designated the site as a place to dump storm debris, and citizens can be seen doing just that in this video on the local paper’s website.

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm inside? The Supreme Court reassured us in Kelo that the government orchestrated theft “would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan.” What they forgot to mention is that careful consideration from politicians is worth about as much as the city’s new debris dump, which is to say: diddly squat.

The fact of the matter is that the development of the property was already being “carefully considered” by the folks that owned it, as is the case for all privately held property, and in their careful consideration they wanted to keep living on it. The lesson of Kelo is not merely on the illusory nature of our property rights. It’s also about the abject failure that is central planning, and the inability of political forces to better plan economic activity than the private sector.

Friday

17

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

Two Bad Stories for Property Rights

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Two recent stories are sure to get your blood boiling if you support private property rights. The first regards a decision by the Supreme Court not to hear a New York eminent domain case, which saw Columbia University first game the system to have property falsely labeled as “blighted,” which it was then free to force out of the hands of the rightful owners.

The legal fight began in 2008, when the Empire State Development Corporation—the state agency with the power to invoke eminent domain—deemed the neighborhood “blighted,” paving the way for eminent domain, which is only legal for projects that serve the “public good.”

Sprayregen, Singh, and Kaur sued the state after the ESDC approval, and a year later, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division ruled in a surprise decision that eminent domain in this case was in fact illegal, saying that the project was for the benefit of an “elite” private institution and thus did not qualify as a public good.

ESDC immediately appealed to the highest court in the state, the Court of Appeals, which overturned the Appellate Division ruling and argued in favor of eminent domain for Columbia’s campus. This ruling now stands uncontested.

“We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court of the United States decided not to hear this important eminent domain case,” said Norman Siegel, Sprayregen’s attorney and the former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The denial … means that the abuse of eminent domain in New York stands.”

The second outrageous story also comes from New York, where the owner of an antiques shop had hundreds of vintage subway signs confiscated by police as evidence when he was charged with theft of the items. The charges were later dismissed, but police are refusing to return his property.

Mr. LeRoy, who owns Billy’s Antiques in Greenwich Village, is trying to reclaim possession of about 100 vintage subway signs that were seized as evidence upon his arrest on theft charges. With the charges now dismissed in Manhattan Criminal Court, Mr. LeRoy wants the signs back.

But the Manhattan district attorney’s office has said it does not have the authority to return them, and is unsure who the rightful owner is. The office told Mr. LeRoy that he may have to sue to get them back.

The district attorney’s stance is based mostly on a provision of the New York City administrative code, which essentially puts the burden on people who have property taken from them to prove they are the rightful owner.

Friday

25

June 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

19

September 2006

0

COMMENTS

Family Farm Seized By Eminent Domain

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The eminent domain boogeyman has been holed up in my closet for a while, giving way to other important matters like that pesky war against radical jihad. Nevertheless, it’s an important issue that hasn’t been dealt with since SCOTUS ruled that this land is neither mine nor yours, but the governments.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court had essentially allowed cities to invoke the power of eminent domain to seize private property not for roads or schools, as is common practice, but for less noble purposes, such as indulging Biff McFranchiser’s discovery that your land is the ideal location from which to sell hamburgers. The cities, which would force you to sell at whatever “fair market” price they demanded on threat of condemnation, would get to keep the toy at the bottom of your Unhappy Meal, in the form of higher tax revenue. Biff, to the cities’ thinking, would generate more income for their coffers than you would by, say, having Pictionary parties or sitting on your couch watching TV.

. . .Piscataway (an Indian term meaning “it is getting dark”) was once a charming farm community. But like so much of America, it is now a charmless depot off the Turnpike, a 19-square-mile blur of box stores, strip malls, and high-density housing. In the middle of this, sprawled over 75 acres, sits the Halper farm, one of the last agricultural tracts in Piscataway.

. . .The township has made feints at taking the Halper property for decades. In 1975, it actually did force the Halpers to sell 25 acres, which Piscataway added to an adjoining park. But the current festivities got underway in earnest in 1998. Around that time, the city purportedly grew nervous that some of its last privately owned green space might fall into the hands of ghastly developers, the kind that are regularly found in bed with the local politicians, making New Jersey a notorious “pay to play” state. Take a ride around the perimeter of the Halper farm, and such concerns don’t seem to have plagued city planner consciences in the past, what with all the quaint mom ‘n’ pop operations like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Hollywood Tans that blanket the town like bad wall-to-wall carpeting.

From the look of things, plenty of people are making hefty profits selling Piscataway real estate off to the highest bidder. But to the city’s thinking, the Halpers shouldn’t be among them. They only worked the farm for nearly a century, why should they make money off it? Never mind that they’d received unsolicited offers for their land for decades and managed not to sell. Piscataway officials were coming after their property anyway, vowing to maintain it as “open space.” An incredulous Clements asks what could be “more ‘open space’ than a farm?”

Wednesday

26

July 2006

0

COMMENTS

Ohio Court Defends Private Property

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

An Ohio suburb’s attempt to seize private homes using eminent domain so they can build offices and shops was shot down by Ohio’s high court.

Ohio’s highest court said a Cincinnati suburb may not take over private property to make way for a $125 million development of offices, shops and restaurants.

The case is the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize homes for use in private development.

The Ohio case involved the city of Norwood, which used its eminent domain authority to overrule holdouts against private development. The project is meant to revitalize the neighborhood, but the state court says economic development alone doesn’t justify taking homes.

Monday

26

June 2006

0

COMMENTS

Updating The Eminent Domain Executive Order

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling

In my post on President Bush’s order claiming to limit eminent domain, I pointed out that the opinions of Daren Bakst at the John Locke Foundation and Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy were in apparent disagreement. But now Bakst has taken a closer look and largely agrees with Somin’s skepticism.

Somin argues, and I agree, that the Order is undermined by the following language:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

The problem is the “merely” language. According to the Order, it probably is o.k. to take private property even if it is for economic development reasons as long as it benefits the general public and doesn’t “merely” benefit private parties. Even after Kelo, no governmental entity would argue that a taking is merely to benefit a private party–they always use the argument that a taking is for the benefit of the public.

At this point legal opinion seems fairly strong that the order will have little to no effect on limiting eminent domain seizures.

Sunday

25

June 2006

0

COMMENTS

Opinions Differ On Bush Executive Order Limiting Eminent Domain

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling

On the one-year anniversary of the controversial Kelo decision, President Bush issued an executive order that appears to limit eminent domain takings to only situations of public use.

Daren Bakst at the John Locke Foundation says it is “very well written” and adds that it “clearly only allows for the taking of truly “blighted” properties” and “that private property should not be seized for a private party’s “use” of the property (not just “ownership” of property).”

Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy has a different take. According to him, “the order does not in fact bar condemnations that transfer property to other private parties for economic development.” He concludes, “this language validates virtually any economic development condemnation that the feds might want to pursue.”

Which of these differing legal opinions is correct?