Category: property rights

Categories
property rights

Sad Ending to a Vexing Tale

Officials of and lawyers for Columbia University must be chortling in ecstatic gloat. They’ve gotten away with something very much like theft. 

But it’s all above-​board and legal, thanks to the Supreme Court, which would not hear the case of property owner Nick Sprayregen, from whom Columbia aims to take property. Sprayregen doesn’t want to sell, as he makes quite clear in something he wrote a few days ago for The Huffington Post.

Yup, this is another travesty of “eminent domain.”

Actually, I’ve written about this case before. Two years ago I called your attention to some of what was going on, calling it a scam: “Columbia has acquired many buildings in the neighborhood, but is not maintaining them. Because of Columbia’s own run-​down buildings, the state has formally declared the neighborhood to be ‘blighted.’ If the entire area is now condemned, full ownership can be transferred to Columbia.” In 2009, Damon Root wrote in the New York Post more extensively about Columbia’s tricky maneuvers. 

The first legal battle against Columbia succeeded, but an appeals court ruled against that initial finding, on dubious grounds. 

Sprayregen understands what’s at issue:

Eminent domain is not for private institutions like Columbia to expand their profit-​making efforts beyond what the free market would allow. I believe that what Columbia has been trying to do is illegal.…

You might think that the Supreme Court, after Kelo, would want to clarify the matter. No such luck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets property rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Hooray for IJ

Let a thousand floral arrangements bloom.

Louisiana has just abolished the “demonstration” section of the state’s licensing exam for florists. The new law came in response to a lawsuit by florists working with the Institute for Justice. IJ argued that the four-​hour demonstration requirement was “arbitrary, subjective and antiquated,” and allowed state-​licensed florists to determine the fate of their future competitors.

The outcome represents yet another victory for the “merry band of libertarian litigators” who regularly do battle “in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are denied by the government.…”

Founded in 1991, the Institute for Justice has successfully fought to lift caps on the number of licensed taxis in Minneapolis; eliminate laws around the country that prevent competition in every kind of occupation, from animal husbandry and interior design to hair braiding and pest control; restore freedom of speech undermined by vague and arbitrary campaign finance regulation in Florida and enemies of property rights in Tennessee; protect businessmen and home owners from eminent domain abuse in Arizona and Ohio.

IJ’s many successful efforts to defend the rights of individuals are having a major impact. Looking back over the many installments of Common Sense, I find that I mention this group’s work again and again.

With good reason. They keep fighting the good fight, and winning.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Domain of Eminent Irony

You reap what you sow.

That’s the lesson being taught to developers in Ozark, Missouri. A few years ago, a company called Hagerman New Urbanism benefited from Ozark’s use of eminent domain power to trample on the property rights of local citizens. The city shoved residents off their property. Hagerman got the stolen land.

But Ozark is unhappy with the progress of redevelopment. The city wants to pull the plug and give the land to somebody else. How can they, though? After all, Hagerman now “owns” the land. Right? Yeah, right.

The parties are in court fighting about whether the city owes money for the work done so far and other contractual matters. But judicial processes are long-​winded and messy. And spending money is expensive. So the city is threatening to use eminent domain yet again. This time against the very developer who benefited from the first land looting.

Local activists like Jane Carpenter, who fought the original use of eminent domain, may appreciate the poetic justice here. But as a matter of principle they don’t support a new eminent domain grab. They say it would signal to businesses thinking of coming to Ozark to stay the heck away.

Good points. Still, I doubt that many folks in Ozark or elsewhere would shed any tears over Hagerman being forced to glug down its own poisonous medicine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Bitterroot Water Ruling

“Frankly, I’m an Obama guy … You hear these sort-​of horror stories about the government is gonna take your property, or they’re gonna confiscate your ground, and I always thought it was some sort of libertarian gobbledy-​gook. But in this case this is exactly what’s happening.” 

That was Huey Lewis; this is the news: The Mitchell Slough, in the Bitterroots of Montana, is a century-​old irrigation ditch. Newcomers to the area, including rocker Huey Lewis, worked on the slough to make it better for fish. Though farmers were at first skeptical, the redigging and unsilting made the slough better for agriculture as well as for fish. 

But those fish are valuable. Other folks covet them.

In Montana, natural water bodies must be accessible to the public. So the recreation lobby took the slough’s owners to court. 

At first, the historical facts of this man-​made water system held sway. But the Montana State Supreme Court overturned all this, caving in to the intense political pressure to open up the slough to public access.

People with fishing rods may rejoice now, but their victory will be Pyrrhic. The fish and wildlife will degrade. Basically, Montana’s highest court unleashed what is called the “tragedy of the commons.” Public access of a common resource often leads to overuse, in this case, over-​fishing. It’s sad news for Huey Lewis, farmers, fishermen … and fish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Scurvy Tricks in Texas

It should be a truth universally acknowledged that your average crew of incumbent politicians in possession of a reform agenda must be in want of an actual reform.

Last summer, the Texas Legislature got hold of a bill intended to prevent abuse of the state’s eminent domain power. And legislators proceeded to mangle it beyond recognition.

The act of bad faith was quickly reported by the Institute for Justice, an organization that actively combats plundering of private property all around the country. IJ alerted supporters to the bill’s alterations, explaining how that at the very last minute, in a reconciliation conference, lawmakers dramatically weakened the measure.

Note, the weakening occurred after it had passed both houses in a much stronger form.

The bill’s point had been to prevent the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment. But the final language allowed lawmakers to confer eminent domain power to any private entity at any time, regardless of other language in the measure.

In November, voters eager for better protection of their property rights overwhelmingly approved Proposition 11, despite its lax provisions. Whether abuses of eminent domain will actually be curtailed as a result depends on the whims of lawmakers and the courts. 

One thing is certain, though, were Texans to possess the right of citizen initiative they could act on their own to bring real reforms to the ballot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Markets Without Mauling

Bribery, insider deals, political influence — must this be how we do business?

No.

Horror stories abound, featuring developers and governments in dark collusion, grabbing stunned innocent persons’ private property. This corrupt, banana-​republic way of getting things done hardly serves the public interest. It serves, instead, the dealmakers and the politicians. Not many others.

Is there any way to expand your business other than by unleashing unfriendly bureaucrats and politicians on people who possess what you want? Well, yes, there is. 

Former ABC news correspondent — and now Fox Business channel star — John Stossel, observes that cities like Anaheim, California, have figured out how to allow development to proceed without systematically trampling on property rights. In Anaheim, zoning and other regulations have been relaxed, making it easier for businesses to go where they want to. But also easier to expand by staying where they are.

If an owner doesn’t want to sell his property to make way for a project, a developer must build around him. Despite this heretical reliance on voluntary cooperation and respect for the rights of others, however, Anaheim has not withered away. 

Stuff still gets done. 

Amazing? Not really. This was once the usual American way. It’s only become unpopular … with politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.