[Speed Gibson,
Monday January 16, 2006 at 9:35pm]
Eminent Domain Reform
This past week on Taxpayers League Live (now on KTLK-FM) featured the best discussion to date on the proposed tightening on the use of eminent domain for private development, not just public uses like roads and schools. State Representative Jeff Johnson, co-sponsor of the bill and candidate for Attorney General debated Jim Miller, Executive Director of the League of Minnesota Cities for the better part of an hour.
Some key initial points, then three excerpts:
- - - - - - - - - -
David: “Why do we need eminent domain for economic development?”
Miller: “Partly it depends on what the definition of eminent domain is. But if you’re looking at a community that really needs to stabilize property values, to insure that jobs are created, to create affordable housing, all of those can really be aspects of economic development. and they are all are purposes that the public generally says in a community are things that we want to have happen.”
Miller said that in a survey of their 853 cities, only 100 used it the last 6.5 years. Two-thirds of those were true public uses, like roads. Of the remaining third, this was primarily Minneapolis, St. Paul, and their first-ring suburbs using it for redevelopment.
David and Margaret later observed that it’s not just eminent domain, per se. The threat of eminent domain, even the mere existence of a redevelopment plan that could later result in eminent domain artificially lowers property values. Facing this, the owners often don’t even invest further in their homes, making them even less attractive.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Miller seemed surprisingly unfamiliar with the two biggest cases to date in Minnesota, Best Buy and Target. He also seems confused on property rights vs. property values.
Miller: “The obligation of government in part is to protect the property rights of others. In a number of these redevelopment instances, what really happens is that the property rights of people that are adjacent to this property are being adversely affected. The redevelopment is positive not only in terms of the redevelopment of the property per se, but the impact it has on adjoining properties.”
David: “It worries me a great deal that City officials can basically say, we’re going to upgrade our citizens. We’ve decided the people we have been representing aren’t good enough, and we’re going to find a better class of citizens.”
- - - - - - - - -
Regarding the proposed bill’s requirement that attorney fees are recoverable when challenging an eminent domain taking:
Miller: “[This] means that many more decisions will be made by the Courts and not by the elected officials, and I don’t think that’s a good public policy outcome.”
Johnson: “And I do. I think when you’re talking about someone’s Constitutional right and forcing them out of their home, I think the Court should be deciding and not local elected [officials]. I can’t think of any other Constitutional right where we say, well City Councils have the last say, and you can’t take it to Court.”
Miller: “I don’t know where the Constitutional right is. We all hold the right to own property as something that’s sacred and we shouldn’t violate t But the Constitution talks really about private property only in the sense where it says it can’t be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Johnson: “That’s right. That’s exactly what I’m speaking of.”
Miller: “And that’s our point.”
Johnson: “I’m just saying that if there is an attempted violation of that, I think average people who don’t have a lot of money ought to have access to the Courts to challenge that.”
Miller:“And they’re certainly not precluded from access to the Court now. What this would do is create the reverse incentive and say let’s not even worry about the decisions at the local level, let’s just take it Court because there’s no reason not to.”
David: “Only if you win, though, right? What you’re arguing here is that even if you win, you now have a $25,000 bill. If you’re an average person and you’re going to have pay $25,000 after taxes for that ...”
Margaret: “You’re going to have to sell your house anyway!”
- - - - - - - - - -
The above is an edited transcript, for clarity only.
This is where radio in general and shows like this in particular have the edge. They can devote the time necessary to get a good understanding of this important issue. Plus, here it was a civil exchange throughout.
Some key initial points, then three excerpts:
- The Kelo decision nationally and Best Buy decision locally didn’t really expand the use of eminent domain. Instead, they made the public suddenly aware of what has been going on for decades.
- What has been going on is that the Courts have expanded “public use” to mean “public benefit” and latter could simply mean increased tax revenue.
- Kelo did affirm that a development / redevelopment plan must exist in these “public benefit” cases. The government can’t just decide to act arbitrarily.
- - - - - - - - - -
David: “Why do we need eminent domain for economic development?”
Miller: “Partly it depends on what the definition of eminent domain is. But if you’re looking at a community that really needs to stabilize property values, to insure that jobs are created, to create affordable housing, all of those can really be aspects of economic development. and they are all are purposes that the public generally says in a community are things that we want to have happen.”
Miller said that in a survey of their 853 cities, only 100 used it the last 6.5 years. Two-thirds of those were true public uses, like roads. Of the remaining third, this was primarily Minneapolis, St. Paul, and their first-ring suburbs using it for redevelopment.
David and Margaret later observed that it’s not just eminent domain, per se. The threat of eminent domain, even the mere existence of a redevelopment plan that could later result in eminent domain artificially lowers property values. Facing this, the owners often don’t even invest further in their homes, making them even less attractive.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Miller seemed surprisingly unfamiliar with the two biggest cases to date in Minnesota, Best Buy and Target. He also seems confused on property rights vs. property values.
Miller: “The obligation of government in part is to protect the property rights of others. In a number of these redevelopment instances, what really happens is that the property rights of people that are adjacent to this property are being adversely affected. The redevelopment is positive not only in terms of the redevelopment of the property per se, but the impact it has on adjoining properties.”
David: “It worries me a great deal that City officials can basically say, we’re going to upgrade our citizens. We’ve decided the people we have been representing aren’t good enough, and we’re going to find a better class of citizens.”
- - - - - - - - -
Regarding the proposed bill’s requirement that attorney fees are recoverable when challenging an eminent domain taking:
Miller: “[This] means that many more decisions will be made by the Courts and not by the elected officials, and I don’t think that’s a good public policy outcome.”
Johnson: “And I do. I think when you’re talking about someone’s Constitutional right and forcing them out of their home, I think the Court should be deciding and not local elected [officials]. I can’t think of any other Constitutional right where we say, well City Councils have the last say, and you can’t take it to Court.”
Miller: “I don’t know where the Constitutional right is. We all hold the right to own property as something that’s sacred and we shouldn’t violate t But the Constitution talks really about private property only in the sense where it says it can’t be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Johnson: “That’s right. That’s exactly what I’m speaking of.”
Miller: “And that’s our point.”
Johnson: “I’m just saying that if there is an attempted violation of that, I think average people who don’t have a lot of money ought to have access to the Courts to challenge that.”
Miller:“And they’re certainly not precluded from access to the Court now. What this would do is create the reverse incentive and say let’s not even worry about the decisions at the local level, let’s just take it Court because there’s no reason not to.”
David: “Only if you win, though, right? What you’re arguing here is that even if you win, you now have a $25,000 bill. If you’re an average person and you’re going to have pay $25,000 after taxes for that ...”
Margaret: “You’re going to have to sell your house anyway!”
- - - - - - - - - -
The above is an edited transcript, for clarity only.
This is where radio in general and shows like this in particular have the edge. They can devote the time necessary to get a good understanding of this important issue. Plus, here it was a civil exchange throughout.