"60 Minutes" Exposes Eminent Domain

[RS Davis]

On September 28, CBS's "60 Minutes" ran an outstanding -- and shocking --
Mike Wallace report entitled "Eminent Domain." It told how the evil process
of "eminent domain" is being increasingly used by governments to seize
thousands of private homes and businesses to reward favored private
businesses, all in the name of serving what these politicians and
bureaucrats deem to be "the public good."

"Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people
off their land, so that private developers can build more expensive homes
and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're
replacing," Mike Wallace declared.

The show told how the city council of Lakewood, Ohio has arbitrarily
declared a charming, close-knit neighborhood called Scenic Park to be
"blighted" -- so that over 50 homes, four apartment buildings and over a
dozen buildings can be seized by the city and sold to hand-picked private
developers.

These developers in turn will build new condos -- which will mean higher
property taxes for the Lakewood government.

"Blighted," Mike Wallace quickly discovered, is a word that means just about
whatever a city wants it to mean. To seize the Scenic Park neighborhood, the
Lakewood government simply defined "blight" in such a broad way as to
include most of the homes in the handsome (and very un-blighted) Scenic Park
neighborhood.

Outraged Scenic Park residents were quick to point out that more than 90
percent of *all* houses in Lakewood could be deemed "blighted" by the
absurdly broad definition the politicians concocted -- including,
incredibly, the homes of the mayor and all seven council members themselves.

Yet even this astonishing revelation -- proof positive of the blatant
hypocrisy of the scheme -- didn't change the council's determination to
steal these particular homes.

Similar horrors are taking place across the country. And Wallace also told
who is fighting back: libertarians! Wallace interviewed Dana Berliner and
Scott Bullock of what he described as "a libertarian non-profit group called
The Institute for Justice" which is helping property owners fight such
abuses in court.

"This is a nation-wide epidemic," libertarian Berliner told Wallace. "We
have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property
from one person to give it to another in just the last five years."

There was much more in this amazing report. If you missed the show, CBS has
posted the full transcript online at the URL below.

(Sources: 60 Minutes transcript: .
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml
Institute for Justice
www.ij.org )

[CJYJTJ]

Eminent Domain is one of the most insidious tools government has used against citizenry I've ever seen, and it's been done for years. Just drive past the Galleria in Brentwood, or any of the whole developmenal area in the 170/40 exhange, and you'll see the E/D concept risen to an art form. Somehow,on the east side of Brentwood Boulevard, the businesses have succeeded so far in fighting off the government's blighting efforts.

I can understand the need for the governments to be able to move citizenry for public improvement for roadways, and other such PUBLIC needs.

But when the government says a groups of taxpayers must go because another group will give them more money, those leaders should be held criminally liable. In my eyes, those leaders who forced out those homeowners were thieves and nothing more.

There is a group of homeowners now in a small town in Alabama fighting against an expansion of WalMart in the same manner. They're going to court against their city in order to prevent being forced out of their homes.

Thanks for bringing this up.

[RS Davis]

CJYJTJ said:

Eminent Domain is one of the most insidious tools government has used against citizenry I've ever seen, and it's been done for years. Just drive past the Galleria in Brentwood, or any of the whole developmenal area in the 170/40 exhange, and you'll see the E/D concept risen to an art form. Somehow,on the east side of Brentwood Boulevard, the businesses have succeeded so far in fighting off the government's blighting efforts.

I can understand the need for the governments to be able to move citizenry for public improvement for roadways, and other such PUBLIC needs.

But when the government says a groups of taxpayers must go because another group will give them more money, those leaders should be held criminally liable. In my eyes, those leaders who forced out those homeowners were thieves and nothing more.

There is a group of homeowners now in a small town in Alabama fighting against an expansion of WalMart in the same manner. They're going to court against their city in order to prevent being forced out of their homes.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Good post! I agree completely. All over the country, the Institute for Justice is fighting this bullshit, and in many cases winning. I hope the funding keeps rolling in, so they can continue doing this work that most civil liberties lawyers won't touch with a ten foot pole.

- Rick

[dr snootch]

I've read similar articles about this. It's bullshit pure and simple. Don't know that I can say it any better than you and CJ. I would go freaking ballistic if it happened to me. Like revolutionarily outraged. Politicians involved in this should be stoned, forget jail.

[RS Davis]

dr said:

I've read similar articles about this. It's bullshit pure and simple. Don't know that I can say it any better than you and CJ. I would go freaking ballistic if it happened to me. Like revolutionarily outraged. Politicians involved in this should be stoned, forget jail.

It's the standard all around the country. Our property rights are probably our most eroded rights in this country.

- Rick

[penguin]

RS said:

It's the standard all around the country. Our property rights are probably our most eroded rights in this country.

- Rick

What, presumably began as a last resort to prevent completion of a public project has grown into aguably the single greatest governmental abuse of our constititional rights.

Have you read this little writeup, by the arforementioned Dana Berliner? Nasty stuff.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

What, presumably began as a last resort to prevent completion of a public project has grown into aguably the single greatest governmental abuse of our constititional rights.

Have you read this little writeup, by the arforementioned Dana Berliner? Nasty stuff.

Thanks! I'll check that out later. Our property rights are eroded in many other ways, too. They sieze property from people accused of crimes and never give it back. They sieze all productive use of farmer's property, declaring it a "wetland" or a habitat for an endangered specie. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 damaged property rights, as well, and opened the door for many more abuses.

- Rick

[penguin]

RS said:

Thanks! I'll check that out later. Our property rights are eroded in many other ways, too. They sieze property from people accused of crimes and never give it back. They sieze all productive use of farmer's property, declaring it a "wetland" or a habitat for an endangered specie. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 damaged property rights, as well, and opened the door for many more abuses.

- Rick

Siezure laws are yet another blow our constitution has taken courtesy of the bloody War on (some) Drugs. This is one thing for which Ashcroft and Reno can share the blame.

Have you checked out F.E.A.R?

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

Siezure laws are yet another blow our constitution has taken courtesy of the bloody War on (some) Drugs. This is one thing for which Ashcroft and Reno can share the blame.

Have you checked out F.E.A.R?

Cool! I hadn't seen that before. I just joined their mailing list.

- Rick

[Kender]

Hello. You may remember me as Kender and/or Gremlin from that "other" place. My name was originally Kender, but when it switched to the name Gremlin since my Kender account became unusable due to some glitch when I tried to change my email address.

Now that introductions are out of the way, I saw this segment too. I was appalled that a government in our country would use eminent domain to turn it over to a private business (in this case, Ace Hardware).

I know, I'm just echoing the sentiments already expressed. Such heavy handedness...is downright unAmerican, regardless of how many communities engage in it.

Sadly, I suspect that if the city didn't do this, they'd find another way to "encourage" the property owner to leave.