The Daily Report

Eminent Domain the Domain of GOP Candidates?

Mike Muller | Fri, Feb 29th, 2008 | Category: Commentary | Tags: mike muller, john mccain, gop, mike huckabee, eminent domain, ron paul, kelo v. new london

The idea that the government can condemn private property for what it views as the public good has been a source of contention for years. But when the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in Kelo v. New London that the city in Connecticut could use its powers of eminent domain to take private land for another private development, a new national debate raged.

John McCain latched on to the issue for a while. In August, he pledged “To appoint strict constructionist judges who respect the Constitution and understand the security of private property it provides. If need be, I would seek to amend the Constitution to protect private property rights in America.”

On his Web site, he is circulating petition to gain support for this stance.

After the Kelo decision, the Arizona senator signed on as one of 32 cosponsors of a bill that would exclude economic development as a justifiable reason for governments to condemn private property.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee hasn’t been as vocal on the subject. He did however, challenge the Iowa governor’s veto of a state law to make it more difficult for local governments to condemn private property for economic development.

“When government takes private property for the benefit of private entities and individuals that is really a threshold that once we cross we have a hard time getting back,” he told the Associated Press.

But representatives of urban interests in the state denounced the bill. The Iowa League of Cities hailed the veto, saying, “The bill unnecessarily restricts Iowa’s climate for economic improvement.”

Image courtesy of Paparutzi’s Flickr stream.

Ron Paul has indeed made an issue out of eminent domain. After the Supreme Court ruling, he wrote “We find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.But he chose not to vote on the House resolution passed shortly after the ruling which expressed ”grave disapproval” of the ruling. He was, however, a cosponsor of some recent bills that would have provide relief to property holders.The year before Kelo, he was a cosponsor of a short lived bill called the ”Eminent Domain Relief for the Little Guy Act.” It would have offered tax relief to property owners within a certain tax bracket who have had eminent domain leveraged over their property.After the ruling, he also signed onto legislation that would have denied some federal money to states and localities that use eminent domain for private development. Although that bill gained 112 cosponsors, it never made it to a vote.Still, the attention to the issue paid by the Republican candidates isn’t enough to placate some. The American Spectator argues: “With the GOP candidates each trying to ‘out-conservative’ the others, it’s hard to figure why none would truly focus attention on an issue that finds something like 100 percent approval with the party’s conservative base.”

• via the social web
• Discuss 2 comments so far
• Email this post to a friend
• Next post Previous post

---

Comments +

1. Robert Boyd
   Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:31am

   Kelo was not the name of the city, but the name of the person bringing suit. The city was the charming but decayed burg of New London. Like a lot of charming but decayed towns in New England, it was desperate for some economic development.

   There is something outrageous about taking someone’s property through eminent domain so that it can be sold to a different private property owner who will presumably pay higher property taxes or, at the very least, encourage economic development through increased jobs, etc.

   But this is simply a part of the dubious strategy that municipalities engage in all the time to attract business. It falls into the same basket of bad moves as tax breaks and direct subsidies. (For example, the suburb of Sugarland, TX, near where I live, recently bribed the Coca Cola Corporation with a $2 million to get them to move the headquarters of Minute Maid from Houston to Sugarland.) In all of these tactics, there is a shift in capital from local citizens and businesses to outside corporate interests.

   This is not inherently corrupt. There is a legitimate development motive for this kind of move. If a subsidy or tax cut or a Kelo-like eminent domain move results in bringing a company in that provides 250 new high-paying jobs with good benefits, it’s hard to argue that it is an unadulterated evil. But the problem is that corporations have gotten so sophisticated at playing local town councils and mayors (who, let’s face it, are much less sophisticated) that towns almost always get a bad deal. And worse, towns are simply not capable of accurately calculating the economic benefit versus the economic loss of their moves in this kind of situation.
   -----

   ---

2. Mike Muller
   Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:55am

   Thank you for catching that glaring mistake, Robert!

   The City Lounge installation that your blog mentions is really very interesting. The idea of creating parks that are engaging and creative is something I often think about. Have you ever seen the Irish Hunger Memorial in NYC? It’s a local favorite of mine; a stunning combination of architecture and open space, especially at night time.

   Click here for Flickr photos.

   ---

Add your comment

Have an account? Login. Want one? Sign up.

Name: *

Email: *

Location:

Website:

Comment: *

Please be civil. Some HTML is allowed. <b>, <i>, <u>, <em>, <strike>, <strong>, <pre>, <code>, <blockquote>

Remember me Notify me of follow-up comments

Enter the word you see in the image above.