RE: [RLC-Action] RLC vs. LP on Eminent Domain
- From: C.B.
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:21 AM
>> Senator McClintock is already working on a proposal.Live in the what?
>> We should work with him.
> Unfortunately--make that fortunately--not all of us
> live in the PRK.
"Yes, I do have questions. I get to ask them BECAUSE I'M FREE!"
-- "Bumper of My SUV," Chely Wright
I don't believe you're protected from abuse at all. Bloomington (MN) used just such laws to take several homes and a business by calling the area "blighted." The thing that made it blighted? The business was an automobile dealership that used a public address system to call salesmen to the office from the car lot. The business was not allowed to switch to cell phones in response to the charges of being a "noisy" business, because the decree had already been made, and that was the necessary condition for having the area declared "blighted." It was also the first time the company had been notified that it was a "noisy" business. That property sits along a very busy section of highway, with other auto dealerships nearby, so that the loss of the "location" (in business, the three most important elements for success are "location, location and location") would be very detrimental to the dealership's prosperity. When you have several auto dealers in one area, they each draw customers more powerfully than if they had been standing all alone. Indeed, the only other property available for a large new car lot was way out of the loop. Just how the hell is the government going to assess a fair market value for just the land, when the entire synergy and good will of a long standing relationship is a critical component of the land's value? Trust me, when city hall wants it, they'll get it, unless the law is written very clearly to protect property owners from egregious and improper applications of eminent domain laws.
So far I have received responses from only one state senator and one state representative (both Democrats!). The vow to pursue legislation to protect landowners from abuses of eminent domain takings in the 2006 session. Only two responses were generated from the 100 plus e-mails I sent to state lawmakers yesterday. Well, maybe I'll hear more by the end of next week.
Toby Nixon wrote:
I thought I'd mention that in Washington state, state law already limits use
of eminent domain to very specific public purposes. One of them is to remedy
"urban blight", and I'll be looking into tightening up that language, but
the general consensus is that the kind of abuse enabled by the recent SCOTUS
decision is already blocked here.
State Representative, 45th District
Maine has a law on the books already prohibiting taking for private use – it needs to be tightened up and that’s what my proposed legislation will do. The legislature won’t be back in session again until January, so I have time to craft a good bill and build support for the idea.
R. Kenneth Lindell
Securities offered by Intervest International Eqities, Inc.
From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Condon
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] RLC vs. LP on Eminent Domain
No additional legislation will be necessary in New Hampshire, the Free State. Stealing property and homes to benefit private parties is already illegal, and prohibited by the state constitution.
--------Tim Condon www.freestateproject.org
John David Galt wrote:
Jeff Palmer wrote:
For those of you not on other e-lists (See below*), I think I'm fair in
characterizing the LP discussion I've seen as "Let's go protest" along with
musings about exercising our 2nd Amendment rights in a Waco-like standoff.
On the RLC-Action e-list meanwhile, we've already heard from a member who
has introduced legislation to curtail such eminent domain seizures in his
state [Kudos to RLCer Rep. Ken Lindell of Maine!!], and discussions are
underway to extend the efforts to other states.
I intend to start, or join, an effort to qualify an initiative for the
California ballot to make private property a constitutional right.
If I write it, it will include a right-to-build-or-be-compensated (along
the lines of Oregon's recent Measure 37) as well as protection against
this new ruling.
Any California libertarians reading this, please contact me if you'd be
interested in helping. I plan to post a similar appeal on other
California lists as well, including FSP and LP.
Posted on Sun, Jun. 26, 2005
CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama sees parallels between Abraham Lincoln's life and his own, but he says the nation's 16th president might not have envisioned a black man occupying the seat he now holds.
Obama, who occupies the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois that Lincoln lost to Stephen Douglas in 1858, wrote about how Lincoln shaped his life in an upcoming special issue of Time magazine.
"In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat - in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles. He also reminded me of a larger, fundamental element of American life - the enduring belief that we can constantly remake ourselves to fit our larger dreams," Obama wrote in a package dubbed 'Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln,' on newsstands Monday.
Obama, a Chicago Democrat who is just the fifth black senator in U.S. history, also raised questions about Lincoln's role in ending slavery.
"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator," Obama said. "As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."
And as for what Lincoln may have thought about Obama's election to the Senate in 2004?
"He may not have dreamed of that exact outcome. But I like to believe he would have appreciated the irony," Obama said.
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football