![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
« Winning is a state of Maine? | Home | In the works.. »
June 25, 2008
A hitchhiker's guide to eminent domain
Last night's City Council meeting included a vote to ask city attorney Randy Nelson to begin eminent domain proceedings against a property owner on Hamill Road in the Hixson area. It is unfortunate, to say the least, any time a government entity takes it upon itself to seize private property (fair market compensation notwithstanding). I don't know all the circumstances of this case, but it sounds like other property owners have accepted whatever offer was given, and a single holdout is blocking a planned road widening.
There are two sides to this dilemma. Safe and orderly traffic flow concerns are a public agenda item, and sometimes roads need to be restructured to accommodate growth. (Think Igou Gap.) But what does the public, through its elected representatives, do when there's one cranky fist-waver (not saying that's necessarily the case here) who won't budge? Do you think taxpayers are going to want to foot the bill to find an alternate solution? Or should we all just shrug and say "Oh, well. I guess there will be more accidents and congestion there?"
Not every Arthur Dent has a Ford Prefect on standby to whisk him away to outer space when the bulldozers come.
And not every government decision is made by Vogons. Public policy is tricky, y'all.
By the way, there's a current eminent domain case in Nashville that has a few people talking, including a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. I don't hear as much conversation about ours. (I first heard of it this morning.) The Nashville case sounds disturbingly akin to the affairs that brought us Kelo v. City of New London. The Chattanooga situation doesn't (to my knowledge) directly involve a private developer, but a public road improvement.
Are they that different, though? Or are there two clear paths here? I'm curious about what others feel.
| By joe lance | 9:23 PM
Comments
As a CT native, I'm very familiar with New London. And while the area in question in the Kelo case was fairly dumpy and in need of rejuvenation, eminent domain proceedings usually make me uneasy.
Of course, the private developer aspect makes it a bit more shady, but even public road improvements are usually made to ease traffic flow to and from areas made more congested by private developers. That is definitely the case with Igou Gap, and pretty much the case with Hamill Road.
Sorry, I don't have a bigger point other than to say that, every day, I turn around and see another example of the government deciding what they are going to take from us and/or what they'll let us do.
And I'm afraid that I just don't see it changing, regardless of which candidate wins in November.
Posted by: Bill at June 26, 2008 10:36 AM
Here in the South, eminent domain doesn't come up nearly as much as the North or on the West Coast, (basically, because we've got so much more land per person) and when it does, it's usually because of a road or bridge modernization. As with most principles, I have no problem with eminent domain as long as the government doesn't go too far overboard.
However, I do think the Supreme Court completely blew it on the New London decision. Increased tax revenue should NEVER be the main justification for use of eminent domain. I predict a future SC will overturn/ amend this decision.
Posted by: DWord at June 26, 2008 11:30 AM
You might want to read this:
Nevada ranchers Wayne and Jean Hage did not live to see final victory in their epic property rights battle with the federal government, but their children, other ranchers, and property owners nationwide have benefited from their steadfast adherence to principle and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds.
On June 6, Loren A. Smith, senior judge for the United States Court of Federal Claims, issued his final opinion in Hage v. United States, awarding the estates of Wayne and Jean Hage $4.2 million in compensation for physical and regulatory takings, plus 17 years of interest and attorney's fees. According the ABA Journal of the American Bar Association, the interest and attorney fees will amount to another $4.4 million. Unfortunately, neither Wayne nor Jean Hage were able to be in court to savor the victory. Mrs. Hage passed away in 1996 and Mr. Hage died in 2006. Both are buried on the family’s Pine Creek Ranch in Monitor Valley, Nevada.
"This decision is important to every American because it reaffirms our basic right to own property, whether you live in a major U.S. city or rural America," commented Margaret Byfield, the Hages’ third daughter and executive director of Stewards of the Range, an organization that has supported the case since the beginning.
..... more at: http://thenewamerican.com/node/8531
Posted by: Mickey at June 29, 2008 6:02 PM