|
|
||
True Kelo reform defeated? Date published: 2/24/2007
THE FOUNDING FATHERS were firm believers in property rights. As James Madison observed, a just government "impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." Property rights form the bridge between effort and its reward. They are foundational to a constitutional democracy and to capitalism. While it has long been recognized that in extreme cases of public interest the government may take property for roads and schools, the pendulum has swung much too far in favor of condemners, thanks in part to the disastrous 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. All but 13 states have passed eminent-domain reform legislation to protect their citizens from Kelo-inspired mischief. And while Virginia legislators have introduced various fixes during this year's General Assembly, the best of the bunch may have gone down to defeat Thursday. The bill, introduced by Del. Robert Bell, R-Charlottesville, would have amended the state Constitution to bar Kelo-style takings strictly for economic gain. But the measure failed 20-16. Regrettably, Sen. John Chichester, R-Northumberland, was among the nays. Mr. Chichester argues that enacting a statute protecting against eminent-domain abuse--protection he says he "outspokenly supports"--is wiser than passing yet another constitutional amendment. "We have gotten into the habit of trying to change the Constitution every year," he notes, adding that that document should be like the frame of a bicycle--and remain relatively fixed. Laws, he says, are like the wheels and seat--changeable when necessary. Yet advocates of curbing Kelo fear that if reform is not embedded in the Constitution, property rights will remain hostage to the whims of the General Assembly--those whims often bearing an odd resemblance to the agendas of campaign contributors. The lobby against true Kelo reform in Richmond is strong. Condemners such as utilities, local governments, and real-estate speculators bend ears, twist arms, and scratch backs. Unfortunately, property-rights conflicts--and the potential for abuse--are all around us: In Madison's own Orange County, a property owner got the bum's rush from a Board of Supervisors meeting after she protested proposed condemnation actions against part of her land. Orange County wants to seize it to expand a road leading to the airport. The landowner believes that condemnation would be strictly for economic development--exactly the motive to which Kelo opened the door. Last spring, Spotsylvania County officials approved a rezoning to allow the Cafaro Co. to expand Spotsylvania Mall (now Spotsylvania Towne Centre). Part of the overall plan was to build a connector between Harrison Road and the mall. Property owners who, with good reason, are reluctant to sell stand in the way. Stafford County has initiated condemnation proceedings against Crow's Nest, a piece of pristine property the county would like to see remain undeveloped as a "passive recreational area." The owner protests. Each of these cases--and none is black-and-white--could end up being decided by a judge: Only a court can say if a condemning authority has the right to seize property. Virginia needs true eminent-domain reform. This year we may, at best, get a new law--with detachable seat and wheels.
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
|||||||||||||
