Harry Themal’s editorial in the Monday News Journal and conversations with a couple of media types brought this issue back to mind.
If it is possible to use eminent domain to take a property from one citizen for the benefit of another, do you really own it? When you buy real property, what you are really buying is a bundle of rights to use the property and hold it for future gain. This is of course subject to many, many regulations. As a matter of fact, by the time you deal with zoning, wetlands regs, flood zones, endangered species, building permits property maintenance codes and the like, if you also don’t get the right to decide when you want to sell it, do you really own it at all? Are you just given a list of rules on when you must cut the grass, trim the shrubs, pick up the litter and clean off graffiti to keep it looking nice until they find someone they like better than you who wants it.
Your only chance is to sell it before they find someone more deserving because if eminent domain comes into play, the government decides not only when you will sell but how much you will get and to whom you will sell.
Once a private entity such as a land developer has approached the owner of a parcel of land, made the owner aware of their interest and for whatever reason, that owner chooses not to sell, that should be the end of it. There should be no recourse to government to exercise eminent domain to force a sale. For that matter, even the threat of condemnation serves to substantially reduce the value of the property to other parties and apply duress to the property owner to sell the parcel to the more favored citizen since there is no knowing what compensation the government would ultimately have to pay. Just the knowledge that a government has the power to reward its more favored citizens creates the impression that when they make you an offer, you should view it as an offer that you better not refuse. Fair market value involves a price agreed to with willing, informed parties, neither under duress.
Taking property for uses such as schools, roads, public buildings, utility easements and the like are legitimate public uses and clearly provide for the general welfare of our citizens and are necessary. Blighted properties that are in disrepair, threaten the health and safety of the public, abandoned property and the like are also legitimate reasons for condemnation. But not economic development!
Why the Supreme Court came up with its decision in Kelo is a mystery.
It would seem self evident that an economic system based on the the private ownership of real estate can not allow its various governement entities to seize a less popular citizen’s property for the benefit of a more popular citizen; even with “just compensation”. I would not even entertain the question of compensation as regards the exercise of eminent domain for economic development. When the idea of just compensation is discussed, my question is what value do you mean? The value before a favored citizen wanted the property for development or the value when it became the last remaining parcel required for the favored one to cash in. Somehow, the value that is used is customarily the one when nobody wanted it.
In a free market, if they have any willingness to sell, the owner can demand whatever they want. They do run a risk, however. If their property is critical to someone’s plan, this is the time that it is worth more than it likely ever will be again; but it is only worth a high premium to this individual and probably for a limited time. If they demand too much, the buyer may walk away and the value of the parcel goes back to what it was before.
If you really own something, you have the right to decide if, when, to whom (no discrimination) and for how much you will sell it with very few exceptions. Otherwise, you never really owned it at all.
Senate Bill 7 looks like it would do a good job of protecting our property rights. The opposition to it by the land thieves confirms it.
Property rights are the cornerstone of the constitution and capitalism.
This is particularly vapid, Steve. No wonder no one bothered to comment.