Libertarian Perspective
The Eminent Domain Battle
by L. K. Samuels
Mon, 18 Feb 2008

Most local governments covet the sound of coins chinking into tax coffers. And when the possibility of more revenue comes their way, they will do just about anything to grab citizens' wallets or their private property.

Therein lies the problem. When developers want cheap land on which to build, they no longer are satisfied to do it the old-fashioned way—i.e., with their own money and resources. Instead, they genuflect in front of City Hall and expect to be showered with tax-funded goodies. They rarely are disappointed.

The power of eminent domain has created a marriage of commercial convenience. Most confiscations of private property nowadays have nothing to do with community projects such as schools, roads, or hospitals. Instead, city governments routinely seize homes and businesses and turn them over for private profit. According to the Institute for Justice, more than 5,000 property owners across the United States had their land seized in the last 10 years for private development.

This wedding of government and business has become the perfect match. Developers get subsidies, special favors, and cheap land to redevelop older areas into massive malls, sky-piercing hotels, and deluxe homes. In return, politicians, who are adept at camouflaging human rights violations, get enhanced salaries, buckets of tax revenues, and greater authority. To city fathers, the violation of rights has become a gravy train for the politically connected elite.

But there is a problem. When property is forcibly transferred from one owner to another, the whole process of representative government breaks down. Originally, local self-governing entities were set up as impartial referees to stop people from abusing the rights of fellow citizens. Officeholders were never meant to be aggressive players in society, mimicking mafia dons in criminal activity.

This mission drift has made municipalities feel entitled to victimize their own citizens as long as they can rationalize the abuse under the auspices of doing something good for the community. But the "public good" can mean anything. It is no accident that almost all dictators in the 20th century framed their community-spirit mantra with the utilitarian ethics of "the greater good for greatest number of people." Obviously, they believed that minority rights can easily be sacrificed for the greater good. After all, doesn't might make right?

Of course, any doctrine promoting aggressive behavior is wrong. When a bully beats up a child at the playground, we instinctively know who is at fault. This is the exact deficiency of eminent domain powers. Many governments have embraced bullying in the name of common-good goals. And yet, when bullies are on the loose, nobody is safe. Even land-stealing politicians inebriated with grandiose projects are not safe after leaving public office. Their property is also at risk.

In one city, citizens are fighting back. In Seaside, Calif., the legendary baseball player Reggie Jackson plunked down $50,000 to start the process of building a 250-room hotel and convention center near the ocean. He had just one little obstacle: he owned only a small portion of the proposed six-acre site amidst churches, homes, and business. Buying the needed real estate would be an expensive proposition.

Immediately, Seaside politicians salivated over the prospect of this massive project. They revved up their redevelopment machine and hired slick out-of-town consultants to explain the procedure to nervous property owners. But when the consultants side-stepped questions about possible land seizures, astute observers understood that future preemptive confiscations were their hidden agenda.

Local residents and business owners began considering a recall petition against any council member who voted to renew eminent domain powers. Within the week, the Seaside Taxpayers Association, chaired by libertarian activist and high school teacher Eugene Lee, notified the media that they would spearhead the recall drive.

More of a lap-dog than a watch dog, the local newspaper pooh-poohed the idea. It editorialized that the taxpayers' group was "lining itself up in crackpot territory." Interestingly, the editorial did not mention the abuse arising from long-term government threats to seize property. Nor did the paper explain the problem of plummeting property values in active redevelopment zones (sellers must disclose all relevant facts about their property or face possible litigation by unhappy buyers).

Luckily, more help is on the way. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and other property rights groups have qualified a ballot initiative to curb eminent domain abuses. Scheduled for the June primary election, Prop. 98 will prohibit the taking of any private property in California for private use under any circumstances.

Hopefully, this time the abuses will stop.

© Copyright 2005 by Libertarian Party of California