But so what? This is the best thing that's happened to the conservative movement in NC in years. Let's celebrate!
Posted on 01/28/2006 6:21:43 AM PST by grundle
Arlington, Va. — BB&T, the nation’s ninth largest financial holdings company with $109.2 billion in assets, announced today that it “will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.”
In a press release issued today by the bank, BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison, said, “The idea that a citizen’s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it’s just plain wrong. One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won’t help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership.”
“BB&T’s principled stand sets an example that should inspire other lenders and should become the new industry standard,” said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. The Institute for Justice litigated the Kelo case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for someone else’s private use in the guise of “economic development.” Mellor said, “You can and should accomplish economic development through private negotiation, not the use of government force through eminent domain. As far as we’re concerned, BB&T now stands for Best Bank in Town.”
The U.S. Congress is now considering bipartisan legislation that would federally de-fund eminent domain for private use. Although the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would block any federal funds going to private development projects on land taken through eminent domain, the Senate has yet to vote on companion legislation. Last week, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), however, commented on an eminent domain case that was argued before the Ohio Supreme Court. The case involves Carl and Joy Gamble, homeowners from Norwood, Ohio, who could lose their home through eminent domain for a privately owned mall and high-end apartments. Frist wrote in an op-ed published by the Cincinnati Enquirer, “I have some pretty clear thoughts about the [Norwood] case: The Gambles should keep their home and the developer should either build around it or cancel the development plans altogether. . . . Quite simply, no family should ever risk losing its home because a government wants to help a private developer.”
Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Kelo case, said, “Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional. BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights.”
Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Gambles’ case before the Ohio Supreme Court, said, “Throughout the country, banks have been silent partners in the unholy alliance between local governments and private developers. Banks finance developers and cities that use eminent domain to take someone’s home or business and turn the land into new stores, condos, and office space. Others will hopefully follow BB&T’s courageous example.”
see also: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564897/posts
and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565592/posts
Whoa! I'm finally proud that BB&T is my bank.
Take that Justice Souter!
the only thing that worries me about this is...
the big corporations, and big development money can put a big hurt on BBT should they decide to do so.
I was censured once for having Fox News on the lobby TV in my branch. CNN was okay. FNC was not.
I have since moved to another bank.
This is a very good thing. In fact, I'm going to call my bank on Monday (Bank of America) and ask their position on this. If they fund land grabbing developers, my business will go elsewhere.
Perhaps we should ALL call our banks and ask?
Allison's leadership on this is to be commended.
As the quotation above suggests, good business awareness on the part of BB&T can also be observed, but let's not let that keep us from acknowledging the possibility of a higher goal.
Business leaders make decisions which, they believe, for whatever reason, is best for them; however, those decisions may result in benefit to others as well--even if those decisions may not have been made for purely benevolent purposes.
Is that not what Adam Smith's "...Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations" concluded?
Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
It won't be easy for either individuals or businesses like BB&T to take actions which seems to fly in the face of the Senate Democrats' recent claims that Supreme Court decisions are precedents which must be treated as unchallengeable, even if they are wrongheaded and go against the Founding principles.
Citizens across America don't believe that, and the Founders never intended it to be so either.
BUMP
Also, your synoptic post on Partners for Liveble Communities (Elsie Cross). I've got to now also look into BB&T. OOOOh yeah, I've got to see the whole Magilla.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.