Master of His Domain

In March, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed a bill restricting eminent domain by developers. The new law, which removes eminent domain powers from all the Beehive State's redevelopment authorities—and, in a witty aside, allows such powers only when the property seized belongs to board members of redevelopment agencies—leaves intact the power to seize property for "public purposes." Since the whole argument for redevelopment condemnations stands on the idea that new developments are always good for the public, it's likely these agencies will find new ways to work around this law. Still, it's a step in the right direction. Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn is now considering a similar bill.

In related news, the other day I caught the grande dame guignol classic Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte (worth buying just for Al Martino's rendition of the title song!), which, like virtually every movie that features an eminent domain plot point, treats the practice with contempt. (In this case, it's made pretty clear that Bette Davis' manor house is being seized in some shady Louisiana intrigue; a similar situation crops up in, of all places, Disney's The Rescuers.) So I wonder, who is publicly in favor of eminent domain? The only pro-eminent domain argument I've ever seen in popular entertainment was in the Elia Kazan picture Wild River. The only time I've personally seen people take sides against a small property owner in one of these situations was in the early 80s, when an Atlantic City woman was refusing to give up her house for the greater glory of the short-lived Playboy hotel and casino; in that case, my teachers (many of whom had night jobs as dealers and thus were interested parties) made sure to ridicule her when discussing local civics issues. Other than that, it seems like the public, whose purposes are ostensibly being served by eminent domain, react to the seizure of property with horror and revulsion. So when the same Supreme Court majority that ruled against Angel Raich the other day inevitably rules against the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London, exactly whose interests will they think they're serving?

Comments

[joe]

You're making a self-selection fallacy. The public gets up in arms about those ED cases it hears about, because only the most controversial ones ever make it beyond the local papers.

When a city buys a plumbing supplier's building and sets him up in a better location four blocks away, nobody ever hears about it, except the people closely following the redevelopment plan, who applaud the action.

[joe]

BTW, a link to the bill would be appreciated. It sounds like a meaningless poseur bill, if it includes the term "public purpose."

[MP]

joe,

ED is not the issue. ED abuse is the issue. It is only abuse when the property owner objects to the taking and the government either does not provide just compenstation (not as common) or the government has inappropriately expanded the definition of "public use" (very common). If the property owner does not object, then there is unlikely to be an abuse issue. Of course, a property owner may not object due to fear or intimidation, but those facts would be harder to come by.

And yes, a link to the bill would be nice. It sounds like sound and fury signifying nothing.

[joe]

MP,

From the post: "So I wonder, who is publicly in favor of eminent domain?"

"Other than that, it seems like the public, whose purposes are ostensibly being served by eminent domain, react to the seizure of property with horror and revulsion."

[Jerry Aldini]

Generally I give the opposite advice, but don't forget Fletch Lives!

[Toxic]

I don't know what the Supreme Court will do with Kelo, but I think we will like it. ED law, as it stands today, gives the government basically unfettered power to take what it wants for any reason it wants. The courts will only stop it if it is an undeniably, obviously corrupt transfer for the benefit of a private party.

So basically, under current law, Kelo was decided correctly. So I think the Supremes must want to rein in ED at least a little bit, becuase that is pretty much the only direction the law could go.

[crimethink]

I wish I could say that The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was the best eminent domain movie of all time. But after that disappointment, I must instead nominate The Love Bug, starring Herbie of course.

[keith]

I'll have to go back and watch it, but my memory is that the freeway-development backdrop (James Cromwell character's scheme) in "LA Confidential" was spun as seedy shenanigan, with an ironically positive goal. Like a tasty sausage you don't want to watch be made.

In any case, eminent domain may not have been explicitly mentioned; I'm just free-associating with freeway projects.

[SR]

I've actually wondered why it is that IJ doesn't try to get some ballot measures on restricting ED going in states that allow such things. In Colorado, you could actually try to eliminate ED entirely (if so inclined), as the Colorado constitution can be amended by straight majority vote.

[Jason Ligon]

joe is right. Policies that are hated by everyone don't stay around. Policies that crap on minorities for the benefit of majorities, now THOSE have staying power.

[Steve]

Wait a minute -- if the property owner doesn't object, it's not an eminent domain taking. It's just a sale. No one thinks there's anything wrong with the government buying your property. It's when the government *takes* your property that people get pissed.

And yes, joe, I know eminent domain takings are Constitutional. I just think they should be treated as a (sometimes) necessary evil.

[MP]

gives the government basically unfettered power

You mean like Wickard and Raich? Unfettered power is not something this SCOTUS has an issue with.

The courts will only stop it if it is an undeniably, obviously corrupt transfer for the benefit of a private party.

The potential corrupting influence is irrelevant. The moral issue simply surrounds the fact that it is going to a private party.

Of course, SCOTUS is a big fan of acting in the face of "corrupting influence", as in their support of campaign finance abominations (uh, I mean, laws). So I guess it shouldn't shock me if I see the word "corrupt" in the Kelo decision.

[Jesse Walker]

My memory of it is pretty hazy, but there was an episode of a '50s or early '60s sitcom -- it might have been Dobie Gillis, or maybe The Patty Duke Show -- in which the hero worked valiently for some urban-renewal slum-clearance scheme. I think.

[joe]

Steve,

I agree with the "necessary evil" description. They should be legal, safe, and rare.

I'm just not sure how you write those guidelines into the law.

My guess on Kelo - the Supremes will strike it down, and require a showing of blight. Maybe they'll even include some definitions of blight that will limit local governments' ability to apply blight designations.

[theCoach]

Knowing practically nothing about it, would it be possible to set up a scenario where refusing to sell property at a price raised the taxes to be in accordance with the offered price?

After a few rounds of that, people might be more reasonable, and the government might look at this process a little more carefully.

[thoreau]

What, no comments on the obvious Seinfeld reference?

[Curious]

Do I understand this correctly?

When the SCOTUS upholds KELO, that combined with Wickard and Raich means the government can seize your grandma's house if she knits you a sweater because she might be violating industrial zoning laws.

Nice! Will they pay for the expanded war on drugs with assets from seized grandma houses across America? I'm sure there are lots of local cops and town boards licking their lips about all the extra income that's about to come their way.

[matt]

Can the ED defenders please tell me the difference, in principle, between stealing my land to build a highway and stealing my land to build a Wal-Mart?

[tarran]

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with most posters by stating that Eminent Domain is an unescessary evil.

If a someone comes to me and makes an offer to purchase my property that I am willing to accept, that is a sale.

If that same person comes to me and threatens to use force to make me turn over my property to them, that is theft.

It does not matter wether the person making the threat is making the threat on his own behalf or someone else's, whether he offers to toss me an amount of money that he, not I, thinks is fair.

Even if the amount offered is more than I would have sold the property for, I am still the victim of theft; of being involuntarily separated from my property - if someone else came along with an even better offer, I would be prohibited from selling to him.

Supporters of eminent domain like to claim that
a) the public on a whole is better off,
b) that the victim receives compensation.

These are irrelevant points.

First, the public is not an entity. Rather, it is a collection of individuals, all with various wants and assets. There is no way to sum how well-off a group is, since there is no way to measure well-offness. So when one of these individuals, who might call himself a "government official," or a "mob extortionist," or a "burglar", confiscates the assets of one group of individuals in order to use them to satisfy the wants of a different group of individuals, there is now way to calculate whether or not the well-offness has increased or decreased.

However, there are various ways to measure wealth-creation, and by most measures, wealth-creation strongly correlates with the sanctity of property rights; the more confident you are that you will benefit from what you own or create, the hareder you are willing to work, and the more productive you will be.

Thus, while one can debate the utility of individual involuntary wealth transfers, the more often they happen, the lower the wealth creation of a society, and the less likely individuals are to be happy.

Now, some would argue that without these involuntary wealth tranfers, we would be worse off, since they are nescesarry to build things that everyone needs but that nobody is willing to build for themselves such as roads, forts, sewage treatment plants, baseball stadiums or headquarters for the N.Y. Times.

However, these claims ignore the rich history prior to the Great Depression wherein private enterprise did build these things. The first highway built for autmobiles in the U.S. was privately funded for example. Unfortunately, since I am at work, I lack the time to google for supporting links, but I strongly urge those who agree or disagree to look for supporting data so that they can post/refute it.

If there is sufficient demand for something, people will be willing to divert their resources to fill that need, whether a desire for video-games, or sewage disposal. People turn to involuntary wealth transfer when the want something, but are unwilling to pay the owner of that thing a fair price. Whether they sieze the property through mob cviolence or through having professional coercers, known as "policemen" is irrelevant. In the end, they want to take something that another will not give to them.

Some will point out that the state officials will "justly compensate" their victims. But how is this just compensation arrived at? Certainly not by coming to an agreement with the victim. Otherwise there would be no need to compensate him; he would have sold voluntarily.

No this just compensation is what the taker decides is just. It is exactly the same injustice as that which occured due to the custom of aristocrats in France who, if they had accidentally injured a peasant, would toss a few coins in compensation and drive on. It may be just from the perspective of the taker, but is by definition unjust from the perspective of the victim.

This unjust compensation is shown to be even more unjust when one asks where the compensation comes from; does the government official provide the compensation from his own pocket?

Nope, the compensation comes from wealth siezed, again by threat of force, from a large number of people, known as "tax-payers"

Thus, when a piece of property is siezed, we all end up involuntarily paying for it.

The utilitarian arguments fall apart when looked at through the lens of history. Historically, eminent domain has always been a major source of income for corrupt government officials and their cronies, who sieze the property of others for their own benefit, or who profit by purchasing the property at a fair market price, and then reimbursing themselves with extravagant compensation packages that turn a neat profit.

To sum up (since my lunch break is long over), no matter how you cut it, involuntary trade is almost invariably a bad thing, and should be always avoided.

[matt]

tarran, you need to post more often.:)

[kevrob]

tarran refers to Long Island's Vanderbilt Motor Parkway.

As for pro-ED films, does Mr. Smith Goes To Washinton count? I never understood why Jeff Smith needed Congress to front the dough for that Boy's Camp idea in Terry Canyon, on Willet Creek. The Boy Rangers organization could raise it themselves, couldn't they? Of course, the Machine had the site slated for a federally-funded dam, so that may have been a case of competing public purposes.

Kevin

[Eric the .5b]

They should be legal, safe, and rare

They're certainly legal, how should we make them "safe" or "rare"?

[joe]

'Twas but a quip, (2Eric x b)/2. I stole it from Hillary's abortion speech.

[joe]

Actually, Eminent Domain has often been exercised so that old men can put up big erections.

Look at the World Trade Towers.

[Isaac Bartram]

joe, that was very funny.

[Isaac Bartram]

Jesse Walker at June 8, 2005 11:36 AM

Such an episode of just about any TV shows in the 50s or 60s would be possible.

My recollection is that the world at the time was still infected with a sort of New Deal/Greatest Generation faith in greatness writ large. After all, it wasn't so long since, through collective action, we'd beat the depression (really we had:)) and whupped Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo in the bargain. We could by God do anything if we just rolled up our sleeves and fueled up enough bulldozers.

Perhaps if I had lived closer to NYC at the time I would've seen how the small business owners and property owners who tried to fight the World Trade Center were treated. But from a documentary I saw it seems they were villified as anti-social elements.

[Russ D]

Wasn't there a Bugs Bunny cartoon where his hole wound up getting surrounded by highways? That one might have been even-handed.

[Jennifer]

In Kelo vs. New London, the underlying principle is even more insidious than eminent domain abuse. New London wants to take property away from someone with a low property tax bill and give it to someone who will pay higher taxes. Think about the implications of that: in a free country, the government is supposed to exist to serve the people; New London is saying that people exist to generate money for the government, so if government decides you're not coughing up enough cash, let's shove you aside in favor of someone with deeper pockets!

I think the Supremes will side with New London; I hope I'm proven unnecessarily pessimistic in this case.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Remember in Wild River the old lady died right after they moved her out of her home.

Not that the movie doesn't seem pro-TVA, but there was at least that little note of dissension in it, anyway.

Lee Remick was one hot-looking babe in that thing, too.

[David Nieporent]

Jennifer -- and to add insult to injury, they gave just a sweetheart deal to the developer that there's no guarantee at all that they'll even see more tax money out of it. (But the politicians will clearly see more campaign contributions...)

The only thing worse (*) than abuse of eminent domain is incompetent abuse of eminent domain.

(*) I would classify the latter as better, if it would serve to convince them not to do it in the future. But it won't.

[Jennifer]

David--
(Sigh) Yeah, I know. I live in Connecticut, so this is local news for me; if (when) Kelo loses I hope she at least has the sense to dump about a thousand gallons of nasty used motor oil in her yard--make those Pfizer bastards spend at least SOME money to get the property.

[Eric the .5b]

'Twas but a quip, (2Eric x b)/2. I stole it from Hillary's abortion speech.

Oh, I got it, I just wondered how sarcastically you meant it. 🙂