MikeBolen.com

When the liberal wing of the supreme court ruled in Kelo vs. City of New London that local government may take private property for new private economic development our court reaffirmed the American ideal that together we achieve more than we can separately. Eminent Domain is the power of government to take land from an owner without his consent with just compensation and sufficient notice. It is rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution that specifically prohibits the taking of property for public use without just cause. A few reasons in favor of eminent domain:

1. Redevelopment of the urban core prevents suburban sprawl
2. Increased tax base from new development projects creates jobs, lowers the tax burden on private homeowners and produces more jobs
3. Allows local government to create safe affordable housing zones
4. Large deteriorated vacant buildings and lands can be redeveloped for the common good and spur economic activity

Many of the great projects built by government would have been stopped were it not for eminent domain. Railroads, superhighways, public parks, agriculture preserves, etc. could be stopped by a single land owner. We cannot afford to allow a single person veto power over such projects. In the future this will be increasingly important as useful land close to our cities becomes scarce.

Property rights proponents claim that the biggest corporations and developers will most often win. If government works the way our founders designed it takes a balanced perspective from public hearings. Then big corporations will only win when the facts are compelling and on their side. As shown with Angwin bubble debate the big company/institution doesn’t always win. The community won when it saw that a plan would have more negatives for the community. Government can work and as such should be given the power to grow.

Sometimes a Wal-Mart, new hotel, shopping center, jail or road is a good use for a condemned piece of property. People need cheap goods, and they also need jobs. In an area of urban blight, a Wal-Mart is a vast improvement to the local landscape. The same thing might be said about a Wal-Mart in a rural area that once was a farm. The reverse is true as well government could condemn a Wal-Mart to create a vineyard to better protect open space. A private housing development might be the solution to replacing run down crime infested privately owned housing.

Ultimately, we need smart government that listens to public input and fosters smart projects where they are needed. Government must assist those who are dislocated by such change in finding equivalent housing, providing more than simply just compensation and other necessities such as counseling, transportation, and moving expenses. If government works to promote smart growth and works for the people we all win.

I urge you to vote NO on proposition 98 and NO on proposition 99.