| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
23 June 2005 - 11:50 am
This thinking might be a vestige of my pre-George W. Bush conservative thinking, but in many ways I'd prefer that property rights should be inviolate and that the government's intrusion should be limited to making sure that what you do on your property doesn't significantly adversely effect your neighbors. Which means I really don't like the idea of the government taking over your property under eminent domain. Clearly, eminent domain has it uses, but I don't think economic development should be one of those. It is especially troubling when people in low income neighborhoods are evicted from their homes. These people often have to leave the community they lived in in order to find suitable, alternate housing. Which means that they sacrifice and get none of the benefits of the new development's tax revenues. I also don't like the government stepping in to essentially create profit for commercial ventures. The evicted tenants are paid the pre-development market rate for their homes, while the developers get to pocket huge profits because they didn't have to pay market rates for the property. [The development announcement logically makes property values go up, because there is a buyer who badly wants very specific properties. But the evicted landowners are paid a "fair market value" for their homes that doesn't factor in the desire of this developer to get their specific property, but just gives them a reasonable price based on the sale price of similar properties. Essentially this acts as a huge benefit to the company that is ultimately getting the properties.] I would be a lot happier if the original property owners were allowed to participate in the profits that the development generates.
The other issue I have with this is accountability. It's all well and good to say that if you're upset about something like this, you should show your disapproval on election day and vote out the people who put this forward. Unfortunately, those who are most effected by the eminent domain land seizures often no longer live in areas under the jurisdiction of those who put these proposals forward. The politicians are essentially doing something that their constituents are against, but in the process are moving preventing them from voting on the issue. That's undemocratic in the worst possible way.
In short, I think eminent domain property seizures should be limited to true government works like hospitals and highways, and not shopping malls and other corporate developments.
Posted by on 23 June 2005 at 11:50 AM
Comments
"This thinking might be a vestige of my pre-George W. Bush conservative thinking..."
I don't know about that. I think this is something liberals and conservatives may be able to agree on. The readers at tpmcafe are quite pissed about it, and I just heard Matt Blunt complaining about it on NPR. Apparently both sides think this was a bad decision.
We already had a system for private companies to aquire private property from individuals: its called "the free market." If a company wants land to build an office building, they can buy it. If the person refuses to sell, they can offer more money. That's really all there is to it.
The fact that the Supreme Court thinks private companies deserve more rights than individuals is pretty infuriating.
Posted by michael on 23 June 2005 - 7:12 PM