Posted on 05/11/2009 1:22:48 PM PDT by mick
Since the Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed that municipality to seize private property on behalf of the Pfizer Corporation, 43 states have passed laws protecting property rights against Kelo-style eminent domain abuse. Mississippi is not one of those states. But that nearly changed in March 2009 when the Mississippi legislature voted overwhelmingly in support of a proposed law which would have guaranteed that "the right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of taking or damaging privately owned real property for private development or for a private purpose; or for enhancement of tax revenue; or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation or other business entity." But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
*******************
Not everyone, if the "right" of eminent domain was required.
“I have a bit of a problem with that because here is Kansas we have a case where eminent domain was used to acquire land for a private developer to build the Kansas Speedway. “
This is how basic rights get lost. People point to exceptions to the rule and say “but we bent the rules this time because it was for a really good cause.” Once you start creating exceptions to a rule, the rule ceases to exist.
George Bush said “I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market.” Do you really think he saved the free market, or did he just open the door so Obama could step through and destroy the free market?
I’m not in favor of using eminent domain... EVER!
Taking someone’s home or land when they don’t want to give it up because the public will benefit is just as wrong as if you reach into their wallet to take their money.
How much do you have in retirement accounts? With your logic it would be fine for the government to take your pension, IRAs, and 401k to spread it around to others who may not have retirement money. The public would benefit so it must be alright, eh?
So big government uses a big government solution and it happens to work. Care to guess the ratio of government incentives that work to those that don't?
Chicago opened, closed, limited and reopened State Street a major shopping district downtown. None of it worked.
Read Bastiat. The trouble is between the seen and the unseen. Wyandotte could have lowered taxes, cut spending, and encouraged development by reducing regulations and zoning restrictions. All of which are pro-individual liberty. Using force successfully to get your economic way is not an American value. At least not originally.
Agreed.
So MS could not lure them in without abusing individual liberty? The medicine is as bad as the cure.
Don’t try to talk reason...
Don’t know you that this is FR??
Knee-jerk reactions based on headlines alone are all we care about here!
Off to the library with you - silly silly silly - did you actually waste your time on research?
Discussion? Reason? Context?
Balderdash!
All we want are black and white absolutes!
Gov. Barbour, despite the fact he guided his state through the Katrina crisis like a Sherpa on a hidden goat trail, saving thousands of lives and millions of dollars, and despite how he made the incompetents over in NOLA look like, well, incompetents - despite all that Haley is now officially evil and contemptible and nothing can change that no matter what good he has ever done before or may ever do in the future, even if he does work out better EmDom rules in MS.
Yes, the dems roll along as supposed conservatives act like dems, yet can’t figure out what’s wrong with this simple picture.
I have always liked Haley B. This is disappointing to me...
And your solution is for bigger government, i.e. the Feds, to tell state and local governments what they can and cannot do? Am I missing something here?
Care to guess the ratio of government incentives that work to those that don't?
But what about when they do work? You hear about cases like the Kelo's in Connecticut. How do you know they aren't the exception rather than the rule?
Chicago opened, closed, limited and reopened State Street a major shopping district downtown. None of it worked.
I remember that. I'll bet eminent domain wasn't part of it though.
Wyandotte could have lowered taxes, cut spending, and encouraged development by reducing regulations and zoning restrictions.
Sure they could.
That's not an accurate analogy. People didn't have their property taken without compensation, they got fair market for it. So if I have a 401K worth $100,000 dollars and the government wants to give me $100,000 for it then where am I out anything? Regardless of what they do with it?
Yes, you are missing something. I never said that the Feds should get involved. Neither did the story. Haley Barbour wants the convenience of picking and choosing the winners. That is right out of the political class's playbook.
But what about when they do work? You hear about cases like the Kelo's in Connecticut. How do you know they aren't the exception rather than the rule?
In America, the ends don't justify the means. We have a Bill of Rights just to clarify that. Use of Eminent Domain for private gain is based on majority rule. By its nature it violates individual rights because it bases the decision on whether the majority benefits. So net-net your loss in rights is mitigated by the financial gain. Can't you see where that leads?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Buddy, that's socialism 101.
My comment: Chicago opened, closed, limited and reopened State Street a major shopping district downtown. None of it worked.
Your reply:I remember that. I'll bet eminent domain wasn't part of it though.
You've already started down the path, no? Big government is big government. They did it because they could, not because it was right or their lives/finances were at risk. It was a big experiment and the guinea pigs were the people who lost jobs, incomes and wealth. Had the stadium in Wyandotte failed would you still be a cheerleader for it? Are you actually arguing that central planners know better? How would you know in advance what will be the right decision?
My comment:Wyandotte could have lowered taxes, cut spending, and encouraged development by reducing regulations and zoning restrictions.
Your reply:Sure they could.
On that we agree. Wyandotte was sending a message to the marketplace with its high tax and I suspect high regulatory burden - don't invest here.
Good question. Probably not. The competition with Alabama and Tennessee for automobile manufacturing is very stiff.
In Barbour's defense, let me say that he wants to be able to bring good jobs to the state, and at the same time, make sure that the use of eminent domain for private purposes is limited, as well as clearly defined, to prevent the type of abuse that occurred in Kelo.
You're absolutely correct. Why should some farmer be allowed to hang onto the land that has been in his family for generation when some other private entity can generate far more money for the government.
Come to think of it, why should your kids choose what they want to study in college? Let the government figure out what career course they should take to maximize tax revenues and then force them to follow such a route.
Fair market value especially for property is a subjective thing. Ask anyone who has had their property confiscated by the government and they will tell you that they did not get fair market value.
The property in the Kelo case was beachfront. Did the town give them what the government thought their old house was worth or did they give them the true value of the land if multiple developers were allowed to bid on the land to develop it? Like most cases in government THEFT, it is an inside deal with government officials getting payback money in one way or another. Just look at Senator Feinstein and her husband for blatant examples of this.
If the government comes after retirement accounts, it will be when stocks are headed for a run and they will give you what they were worth at a low point. You’ll also lose the tax free status of any Roths and the benefits of compounding. If you think the government workers are looking out for the best interests of Americans, then you have bigger problems than I can solve in this forum.
Finally, if you don’t believe in PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS and think that government knows best, then move to China.
*****************
Let's say I own five acres of land that my town has decided would make a nice little park for all the citizens of my town. I'm given fair market value through eminent domain for my property. Let's also say that there isn't another five acre plot that is in the same kind of neighborhood or anywhere as close to my job, an excellent local hospital, our friends and so on. How is this fair compensation?
The risk is, as always, good guys can be trusted, but what about the next governor? The history of government/politics usually is full of nefarious characters with just a tiny smattering of heroes.
That is my concern.
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.