Eminent Domain
Tennessee legislators need to pay special attentinon to this press release from Castle Coaltion on the subject of public sentiment and eminent domain.
By the way, discussion of eminent domain on the house floor of the Tennessee legislature has been postponed until Thursday. I’ll pay any one willing to video tape the floor debate $100.00, plus any mail/delivery cost to me. If you think the job is worth more than $100–we can talk. (And yes, I know you can watch it online–but the quality isn’t that great and you can’t always see and hear who is saying what.)
Any takers?
On to the press release.
In poll after poll conducted since the U.S. Supreme Court’s eminent domain ruling last summer, the public is almost unanimously opposed to government using eminent domain to seize private property for private development. Rarely is the public so united across the political spectrum.
“The American people are furious their property is up for grabs,” said Dana Berliner, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. “They understand that the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on their properties.”
Citations for each of the following polls are available at www.CastleCoalition.org.
MSNBC Poll (130,758 responses)
Should cities be allowed to seize homes and buildings for private projects as long as they benefit the public good?
Yes, all parties benefit in the long run: 3%
No, property owners will lose and developers gain: 97%
CNN Poll (177,987 votes)
Local governments should be able to seize homes and businesses:
Never: 66%
For public use: 33%
For private economic development: 1%
University of New Hampshire Poll
“And while New Hampshire may be divided over many issues concerning the Supreme Court, they are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the effect of the Kelo decision—93 percent say they oppose the taking of private property for economic development reasons, only 4 percent favor this use of eminent domain, and 3 percent are unsure.”
American Farm Bureau Federation (1,076 adults, conducted by Zogby International)
Oppose the use of eminent domain to further private development initiatives: 83%
95% expressed disapproval of the Kelo ruling
Hampton Roads Poll (4,947 votes)
Should local governments be able to seize homes for private economic development that will produce jobs and tax revenue?
Yes: 4.63%
No: 93.57%
CBS News, Denver, Colorado
Should local governments exercise eminent domain for retail development?
Yes: 3%
No: 95%
St. Louis Business Journal
Should the use of eminent domain be more restricted?
Yes: 86%
No: 11%
Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. (625 Florida voters)
Should the state legislature adopt increased protections for property owners?
Yes: 89%
No: 9%
Americans for Prosperity Poll (400 Registered Voters, Kansas)
Eminent domain for private concerns:
Oppose: 92%
Favor: 7%
Monmouth University (800 New Jersey residents)
Oppose taking low-value homes to build a shopping center: 90%
Oppose eminent domain to replace lower-value residences with higher-value homes: 86%
American Survey (800 registered voters nationwide)
Favor legislative limits on the government’s ability to take private property away from owners?
Democrats: 62%
Republicans: 70%
Independents: 74%
Retail Traffic Online Poll (200 retail and real estate executives and architects)
Agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Kelo v. City of New London?
Strongly Disagree: 84.5%
Quinnipiac University Poll (1,067 Connecticut registered voters)
The state legislature should pass laws limiting the use of eminent domain:
Yes: 89% (91% of Republicans surveyed, 85% of Democrats)
No: 8%
Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll
“In the wake of the court’s eminent domain decision, Americans overall cite ‘private-property rights’ as the current legal issue they care most about, topping parental notification for minors, abortions or state right-to-die laws.”
Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, said, “The polls clearly indicate Americans think eminent domain should be used for public uses, not for private development.”
11 Comments so far
Leave a comment
[...] Terry Frank notes some polling info related to eminent domain. Most striking: Should local governments be able to seize homes for private economic development that will produce jobs and tax revenue? [...]
By SayUncle » Eminent Domain Poll Numbers on 03.28.06 8:06 am
Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale said on WBIR’s “Inside Tennessee” that there is no eminent domain abuse in Knox County or Tennessee.
Local attorney Don Bosch agreed with the Mayor and added that “one of the great things is that if you don’t agree with what the government takes your property for you get the right to a jury trial with 12 citizens in that box who generally don’t the idea of eminent domain.” Bosch also added, “I represent people that have their property taken.”
Read the transcript here:
http://propertyrightsknox.blogspot.com/2006/03/don-bosch-says-you-get-right-to-jury.html
By Property Rights on 03.28.06 9:59 am
Ragsdale has lost my support. I will not be supporting Mike Ragsdale in the primary for County Mayor
By David Oatney on 03.28.06 2:07 pm
Property Rights: What is interesting is Don Bosch’s failure to disclose his interests in redevelopment. Bosch was appointed by Mayor Haslam to serve on the “Downtown Advisory Committee.”
The group met from Nov. 4, 2004 through March 2005.
They issued a public review “Draft” for “Downtown Improvement” in March of ‘05, but if someone were interested in seeing if any discussions took place about eminent domain, he might ask if there were any recordings of the meetings.
Bottom line: Bosch should have at least disclosed he is involved in the redevelopment issue as he was appointed by Haslam to study and advise on the issue.
But no, nary a peep. He acted like a bystander on WBIR–like he had no dog in the fight. Shame, shame.
By Terry on 03.28.06 3:57 pm
Don Bosch is also co-owner of the old KUB building on Gay Street. Will Mayor Haslam grant him a TIF and facade grant for the development of the old KUB building into condos?
Yet the owner of the McClung Warehouse has been denied both a TIF and facade grant by the City and KCDC plus has been threatened with condemnation by reason of blight by KCDC under instructions from the office of the Mayor.
I guess relationships do matter.
The law is supposed to be blind. Yet the KCDC and the Mayor work on relationships. It is all who you know.
Why are a select few property owners rewarded with taxpayer dollars and other property owners forced to hire attorneys to defend themselves from condemnation threats from the City and KCDC?
All the while both Mayor Haslam and Mayor Ragsdale say there is no eminent domain abuse in Knoxville.
By Property Rights on 03.28.06 7:37 pm
I still haven’t heard about a case where Knox County used ED. Didn’t they just purchase a large parcel for a West Knox County High School without it? All this fear-mongering about the “war” against ED seems to be just a way to rile up constituents. Campfield has had a lot of trouble getting legislation passed in Nashville, and while I appreciate his independence, he seems childish and misguided.
By Lurker on 03.28.06 7:58 pm
Who mentioned Campfield? Maybe you meant your name is “Stalker” instead of “Lurker.”
59 bills were proposed in Nashville on eminent domain. The polls I cited above were conducted by mainstream, large news organizations. Would they conduct a poll on a non-issue?
In other words Lurker, eminent domain is an issue.
For sake of argument, what if I accept your premise that there is no eminent abuse Knoxville. Do you think we need no laws preventing eminent domain abuse?
The person that seems childish here is you. You are so obsessed with the defeat/destruction/downfall of one legislator, that you would ignore an issue like “government seizing private property for private development”, that as the above polls show, is one where the public is nearly unanimously opposed.
In a time when our country is so polarized on such a host of issues, it is quite amazing that there is such a consensus.
By Terry on 03.28.06 8:21 pm
“I still haven’t heard about a case where Knox County used ED.”
That is exactly what Mike Ragsdale and Bill Haslam said. You are as informed as they are.
Here are several examples of eminent domain abuse in Knoxville:
http://propertyrightsknox.blogspot.com/2006/03/lonzo-stephens-story.html
http://propertyrightsknox.blogspot.com/2006/03/controversy-about-knoxville-community.html
By Property Rights on 03.28.06 8:52 pm
I think I said Knox County, not Knoxville. Two different governments…Once again, cite one case in the past four years where KNOX COUNTY has used ED…there are NONE I can think of. I even cited a case where property for a high school was purchased without ED.
I think that eminent domain abuse should be watched very closely, however there are cases in which it is appropriate. I think the examples of abuse in Knoxville are anecdotal. Of course a poll will reflect people’s ill feelings toward ED. It’s not a pretty thing. Nobody wants to give up their land against their will. But there is such a thing as a greater good.
By lurker on 03.28.06 9:34 pm
Lurker,
You are a communist. Don’t get mad that I wrote that. Come to terms with yourself.
Why do you defend government? What is the “greater good”? How do people achieve their greater good; is it by licking the hands of the bureaucentrist animals like yourself?
Instead of whining about the lack of authority of government why don’t you complain about the fiat money system that is enslaving you?
Mat
P.S. Go Steve and Stacey!
By Mat on 03.29.06 7:20 pm
Thank you for enlightening me, Mat!
What a compelling rebuttal…
By lurker on 03.29.06 10:05 pm
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>