Tag: eminent domain

Categories
litigation property rights U.S. Constitution

The Stealing Goes On

eminent domain, theft, law

“On March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up the case of Bowers Development, LLC. v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency Et. Al.,” writes Conner Drigotas, “a decision that allows the practice of legalized theft through eminent domain to continue throughout America.”

This is not good news, as Mr. Drigotas explains. “In that case, Bryan Bowers had asked the Justices to review a ruling from the Supreme Court of New York that allowed Utica city officials to take land on which he had a contract to build and give it to a different private corporation for a separate construction project.” Mr. Bowers had “hoped to stop government officials from using force to pick winners and losers in the construction industry.” But it was a no go.

Politicians and bureaucrats love to grab other people’s property, under cover of “the public interest.” But their “public interest” is nothing more than a thin disguise for helping some individuals (often contributors to politicians’ campaigns) at the expense of others.

“With their denial of Bowers, Justices continued to show support for one of the most hated and notorious decisions to come out of their lofty chambers: that of Susette Kelo v. New London, Connecticut,” explains Drigotas. The Kelo case, often mentioned here, remains the ruling precedent, the government’s license to steal. Its loose construction of what can be regarded as in “the public interest” is a big part of the problem. 

Sadly, the courts have so far refused to rein in government eminent domain abuse. And voters have little sway upon the judiciary. And our representatives, our first line of defense, have also declined to stand up for basic justice and decency.

What to do? Remember that your representatives will soon be on the ballot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights property rights

Property Rights for Competitors

Kelo, eminent domain, property rights, IJ, Institute for Justice

New Year’s Resolution for the U.S. Supreme Court: follow the Constitution.

That’s not what happened in 2005 when, by a 5 – 4 majority, the court determined that governments in this country could enjoy an almost unlimited power of eminent domain. The mere prospect of a more taxable commercial entity or mere desire to appease some constituency would suffice to legally justify violating the rights of innocent property owners.

This Kelo v. New London decision was applauded by abusers of power, derided by defenders of property rights. The latter leapt into action, fighting for legislation in 47 states to give property owners firmer protection.

One exception was New York State, where the town of Utica recently used the power of eminent domain against Bryan Bowers and Mike Licata.

These business partners had established a cardiology service to compete with that of CNY Cardiology group, right next door. CNY begged the city to let it turn the Bowers Development building into a parking lot. We need a parking lot there, said CNY; right where our lower-​priced competitor is sitting.

The city said okay.

Enough, says Institute for Justice, which is representing Bowers Development and all of us by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Kelo.

IJ President Scott Bullock believes that it’s “high time for the Supreme Court itself to … remove this blot on its jurisprudence and restore constitutional guardrails to the use of eminent domain.”

Please resolve to give America a favorable outcome, justices.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary property rights

Lost Justice, Long Island

Brinkmann's, Institute for Justice, IJ, property

You can’t win them all.

The Institute for Justice and its clients, Ben and Hank Brinkmann, suffered a defeat in a recent eminent domain case, Brinkmann v. Southold, New York, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case.

IJ notes that the three justices in favor, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, “took the unusual step of recording their votes publicly.” But four votes were needed.

The two brothers own a chain of hardware stores. In 2016, they found an apparently ideal place for a new store in Southold, New York.

Although the property they bought was commercially zoned, the town government imposed one arbitrary and expensive obstacle after another to prevent construction. Finally, it used eminent domain to seize the property.

Though blatant, the town’s arrogant and capricious behavior was accepted by lower courts.

“Government shouldn’t be able to get away with these abuses of power,” the brothers say, “and shining a light on them like we did with the help of IJ will continue to build public support so that one day no one will have to go through what we have.”

Sometimes, when the bad guys go all out to violate the rights of people who are willing to go all out to defend those rights, unfortunately it’s the bad guys who “win,” if you want to call getting away with it a victory.

But the good fight is itself a kind of victory, and it will lead to victories for others.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
partisanship political challengers

Such Is Today’s Politics

land grab, eminent domain, theft, property, border,

“You do have a problem with a President demanding the federal government go ahead and seize private land and then promising to pardon those who seized the land,” challenged Joe Walsh, the former Illinois congressman running in the Republican Party primaries against Donald Trump. 

“Don’t you?”

Matt Welch, writing in the LA Times, quoted this Walsh tweet (three days after the Walsh2020 campaign announcement) to express alarm about where the GOP is heading. “We are accustomed to some ideological shape-​shifting when the White House changes teams,” writes Welch. “But what’s so striking about this week’s slate of immigration-​related controversies — including the one that supplanted the land-​grab pardon: the administration’s new rules governing potential citizenship for the children of U.S. service people abroad — is that none of it should come as a surprise.”

Because Trump is doing (sorta) what he promised to do. Which includes taking land by eminent domain. 

Before his election, Trump had proclaimed his support for the Kelo decision that signed off on governments nabbing land to give to private developers. At issue now is condemning land to build The Wall — at least an arguably public use. 

While “private property rights used to be foundational to the conservative movement,” Welch bemoans that Trump “didn’t care. And that Republicans cared a hell of a lot less than they claimed to.”

Again, unsurprising. Republican pols did little to nothing for property rights or limited government pre-​Trump. So these anti-​leftist voters went for someone — anyone? — who could deliver something.

I doubt that candidate Walsh will convince many that he can deliver much of anything.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

land grab, eminent domain, theft, property, border,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


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
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

Good Property Rights Make Good Neighbors

The California Coastal Commission sought to tear down a fence on private property. The fence, on the property of Martin and Janis Burke in Torrance, California, marks the boundary between public land and private land. 

This seems like a benign enough purpose. The “private” part of “private property” means you get to keep people off your property, no?

The fence also serves a wider public purpose. It stops hikers from climbing to an unstable bluff at which two people have actually died. Remove the fence and it become easier to veer off public property, easier to reach the unstable bluff, easier to die.

The story appears to be another case of bureaucrats with too much time on their hands, too eager to interfere in the lives of others in the name of some value allegedly superior to individual rights. In this case, even to individual lives.

Fortunately, the Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the Burkes, recently won a victory over the commission. A California court says the commission lacks the authority to force the fence down. 

J. David Breemer, Principal Attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, notes that the foundation has a track record of deflecting the excesses of the California Coastal Commission. 

One moral of the story: Property rights are a “good fence” against the predations of abusive government. They, too, should be allowed to stand. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall property rights

Two Pols vs. the People

Governor Deval Patrick laid his cards on the table pretty plainly when he vetoed a home rule petition from the town of Amesbury, Massachussetts.

Had Patrick signed off, the town could have adopted tougher restrictions on the use of eminent domain than the state as a whole. In fact, the town would have banned the use of eminent domain to transfer property between private parties.

Patrick says he rejected the petition because of “significant opposition to this bill at the local level.”

That opposition certainly isn’t coming from property owners worried about developers trying to grab their land.

As for Amesbury voters, they passed the measure to submit this petition at the ballot box, and it was unanimously approved by the town council. Then it made it through the state legislature before reaching the governor’s desk. About a month before he vetoed it, Governor Patrick himself voiced support for the bill when he was in Amesbury.

Of course, the persons who want a free hand to grab property whenever they like are the ones who oppose the petition. These include the current Amesbury mayor, Thatcher Kezer, who says there’s “no need” for Amesbury to differ from the rest of the state when it comes to stomping on property owners.

Deval cites such opposition as if it could justify his contempt for Amesbury voters and their property rights. But politicians like Kezer will never voluntarily relinquish the power to rob their neighbors.

Unfortunately, that’s common sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

A Muse Not Amused

Blight. One of my favorite bloggers, Blue Collar Muse, refers to the continual abuse of eminent domain by government as “blight.” He“s playing off the slippery concept of blight that local governments use to condemn whole areas in order to steal homes and small businesses.

This Muse also alerted me to yet another instance of government blight: The story of Joy Ford“s light to keep her business, Country International Records, away from the bulldozers of Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency.

You see the MDHA is hooked up with a Houston, Texas, company trying to force property owners off their land to make way for a $100 million development scheme. So far, Mrs. Ford faces the wrecking ball.

It’s too bad Tennessee’s legislature didn’t pass legislation to further restrict eminent domain power after the Kelo decision. But wait … it did.

In one part, the Tennessee law forbids governments from taking property from one owner to give to another private party. But in another part, the law explicitly allows “housing authorities” and “community development agencies” to do just that. Outrageous!

Many states and localities enacted similar laws that are at best band-​aids, and at worst, blatant scams perpetrated against the public. In fact, back in 2006, when Tennessee’s law was passed, Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said it was a “joke.”

Funny, for all the jokes in government, why are we not amused?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Trichotillomania

Trichotillomania is a mental disorder, the compulsion to pull one’s hair out. I think I have it. At least, I find reasons to tear out my hair.

Frayda Levin knows what I’m talking about. As chair of the New Jersey chapter of Americans for Prosperity, she’s been very passionate on a host of issues. I met her in the course of fighting against eminent domain abuse. We risked follicular damage after Kelo.

Like all sensible taxpayers, Frayda opposes Congress’s corrupt earmark culture, whereby congressmen use our tax dollars to fund their personal favor factories. Recently, she wrote to New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez asking him to support a legislative moratorium on earmarks.

Instead, Senator Menendez wrote back defending his support for earmarked pork. “While our federal agencies implement programs from Washington,” he countered, “they often do not understand the unique needs of the communities and the states.”

When Frayda responded to Senator Menendez, she pointed out how completely ludicrous it was to “send money to D.C.” and “then have to spend resources finding a sympathetic ear, who can, as you note, understand local needs.”

Frayda asked why the senator hadn’t initiated a shake-​up of the admittedly out-​of-​touch federal bureaucracy. She mentioned the 10th Amendment, the role of the states, and inquired why this money should be going to the federal government in the first place.

She got no response to that.

I’m sure Menendez saw danger to his own scalp.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.