Tag: post-Kelo

Categories
local leaders property rights

The Redding Alternative

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it is constitutionally okay for states and towns to grab property for pretty much any reason at all, citizens have been trying to prevent governments from doing so.

The track record is spotty. Officials and private interests who like to grab private property are aware of public outrage over the court’s decision. So they often support “protections” against eminent domain abuse with loopholes you could drive a truck through.

In a recent California election, two alleged property-​protection measures were on the ballot. Proposition 98 was the real deal. Proposition 99 was the fake. Unfortunately, the phony measure was the one that passed. It was the measure that had by far the most advertising, being bankrolled (you guessed it) by land-​grabbing special interests.

Friends of property rights can eventually try another ballot measure. Meanwhile, voters and elected officials in towns and counties can act independently to protect property owners, as the town council of Redding, California, has done. By a majority of three to two, the council voted to forbid officials from grabbing property just to flip it to another private owner.

Redding Councilman Ken Murray, who proposed the new law, says he wanted “to make it really hard for some future councilperson to willy-​nilly take property from one person and give it to another just to jack up our revenue.”

Great move! Let’s hope it works.

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.