 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Silence is Feingolden | Main | Stating the Obvious » July 11, 2005Harold Ford Casts A Vote Against Civil RightsThe U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. New London, giving government the right to take private property and give it to another private owner, such as a real estate developer, for any reason - even if the property is not "blighted" - has done something rather amazing: It has made allies of stalwart liberal U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, and staunch conservatives in Congress. The Wall Street Journal reports: In 1954 the Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. But that same year it also ruled in Berman v. Parker that government's power of eminent domain could be used to seize property in order to tear down "blighted" areas.U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., currently running for the U.S. Senate, voted against it - which means, incredibly, he voted against a measure designed to protect the civil rights of not just African Americans but of all Americans. Many Democrats who used to scoff at conservative fears about activist judges are now joining their barricades when it comes to eminent domain. "In a way this ruling is about civil rights because it interferes with your right to own and keep your property," says Wilhelmina Leigh, a research analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington. "It means you have to hope and trust in the goodness of other human beings that if you buy real estate that you will be allowed to keep it." Few appear to be willing to trust government on this issue, which is why the Kelo decision has touched off such a populist reaction against it.I wonder if state Sen. Rosalind Kurita has has been properly explained this issue to the people of Tennessee's Ninth Congressional District. Comments
You guys apparently will stop at nothing. Harold Ford Jr. is a great champion of human rights and freedom for everyone. You can't name someone who has a better record than his for fighting discrimination against his fellow man or woman. That is just a fact. As evident by your most recent attacks, you guys must be desperate to resort to this. Now to the case itself. Congressman Ford has explained his position on this ruling via the op-ed he wrote Saturday. He made it clear he does in fact support the rights of homeowners and business owners. However, he also recognizes that areas in big cities, such as his own in Memphis are crying out to be rebuilt to bring in new businesses, which will in turn lift up the whole community. Congressman Ford said he supports the idea of lifting up places of blight, and he also said that the recent Supreme Court case went too far in their ruling. During the interview that you keep promoting, the Congressman said the key component of the ruling, which is stated above, is a 'positive'. That is all he said. However, this site along with others took that as a ringing endorsement for the seizure of regular people's homes--which is not the case. In life, not all things are perfect. Just like this court ruling; it has it positives and it has its negatives. Congressman Ford has pointed out what value he saw in the court's ruling and also pointed out where the ruling went too far. Now it is time for the US Congress to do their job and sit down to come up with a policy that makes sense for everyone. The Congressman has said he is committed to working to do just that. Whether others follow his leadership in mediation--that is up to them. Posted by: Chris D. Jackson at July 11, 2005 12:32 PMThe Hill 7/6 reported that Rep. John Conyers (D) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R)introduced legislation in the House Judiciary Committee to limit the use of federal funds in any project at the state or local level that employs eminent domain as interpreted under Kelo. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus have already signed on as cosponsors, including Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D). Wonder if Ford will? Posted by: JB at July 11, 2005 1:19 PMChris, I already shredded Ford's pathetic op-ed. His problem is that Kelo IS NOT ABOUT REHABBING BLIGHTED AREAS - it is carte blanche for a city government to take any privately owned property for any reason. "Regular people's homes" is exactly what the government is seizing in the Kelo case. These homes are NOT BLIGHTED, and the area the homes are in is NOT BLIGHTED. The city simply decided that it would get more tax revenue from the land if a private developer could build a big hotel and retail complex on the site. All of the things Ford says are "positive" about Kelo were already permitted without Kelo - government already could use eminent domain to condemn blighted property and redevelop it, and government could involve the private sector in that redevelopment project. What is new is two-fold: government can take property FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, as the ruling states that "public use" is whatever the local legislature decides it is, and, 2, government may now take from one private owner and give it to another. Property deeds are now virtually meaningless documents. If, as you say, Ford thinks Kelo goes to far - where is his proposal for legislation to reign it in? By the way, if you have a connection to the Ford campaign ask him why he hasn't responded to my email with six questions about Kelo - Kurita did, as did Harwell, Hilleary and Bryant, and I posted them all verbatim here at BillHobbs.com. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at July 11, 2005 1:35 PMWhy should he respond to your requests? Looking at your site, every article that talks about the Congressman is negative. What would he have to gain by answering questions from a website that has attacked him since day one? Also, Congressman Ford said he is ready and willing to work on legislation that would reign in the Court's decesion. Legislation of such porportion can't be done over night. It has to be thought through carefully with all options being considered. I am interested to hear why the Congressman should take your survey after you have attacked him time after time and posted misleading information. I await. Thanks, Chris D. Jackson I posted the six questions here at BillHobbs.com and also emailed them to Rep. Ford on June 23, the day the Kelo decision came out, which is now more than two weeks ago. I re-emailed the questions to Rep. Ford a few days later. All six candidates running for the Senate got the exact same questions, email and offer: I would reprint their responses verbatim. Four candidates have chosen to respond which is a smart move as it shows that, A) they aren't afraid to discuss the issue and, B) they are aware that the blog-reading audience is growing and politically active. I made my offer to Ford and the other five candidates BEFORE Ford went on the radio and called Kelo a "positive" ruling, and BEFORE I began exposing his record on private property issues here at BillHobbs.com. He has a dismally poor voting record on such issues. Ford chose to ignore the offer. Lacking his response, I have chosen to present his radio statement and his op-ed in their entirety, so that people can make up their own mind. I have also been hammering Corker for failing to say a word anywhere about the Kelo decision. Meanwhile, the offer remains for Ford and Corker both to respond to the six questions, and have their answers presented here verbatim. You ask why Ford should respond? Simple. He might convince someone he's right, and - even if he doesn't - his willingness to engage in the discussion would no doubt impress some folks and might gain him a vote or two or some financial support. Not all of my readers are Republicans. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at July 11, 2005 3:40 PMMr. Hobbs, I am a frequent reader but first time responder. While I agree with you at times I feel you greatly missed the mark this time. How can you accuse Harold Ford Jr. of casting a vote against civil rights? He opposed the Kelo decision and voted for a Congressional Resolution disagreeing with it (as noted in his column, even on your site). He said he sees the value in helping our urban and rural areas “crying for development.” According to his own words as you listed, he voted against an Amendment that would have cut millions of dollars in grants for developing housing projects in economically depressed areas of our state. That matches up with everything he has said that you list. Is there something out there you’re not telling us about or did you just miss the mark? Posted by: Zoe Whitefield at July 11, 2005 4:30 PMBill, you might have a little better luck getting ahold of the Congressman if you would not have attacked him since day one. Anyone can check your archives and see you have had it in for him since the day he announced. Posted by: Chris D. Jackson at July 11, 2005 4:33 PMHarold Ford Jr. is one of the last people who you could accuse of voting against civil rights! Mr. Hobbs you should be ashamed of yourself. Posted by: Matthew Herdsmen at July 11, 2005 4:53 PMBill, you are doing one hell of a job on this. Ford got caught with his hands in the cookie jar and if he had his way, it would be my grandmothers/parents cookie jar as well Harold "Sheriff Nottignham" Ford has been challenged by little ole Bill Hobbs and he ain't liking it one iota Tough Posted by: Paul at July 11, 2005 5:01 PMHarold Ford Jr. did not cast a vote against civil rights when he voted against a bill that would have blocked federal dollars from being used to upgrade our neighborhoods. He wanted those dollars to be available for use by people wanting to improve these neighborhoods we live in. Get real. Shelby Moore Like Congressman Ford said on Teddy Bart’s Roundtable, local government officials, who still have to be re-elected, are the ones who will have to answer to these imminent domain requests. They are not going to allow every “Joe Contractor” to come in and take over the government housing development to put up a new strip mall. It would surely cost them not only their seat but also their respect in the community if they were to let that happen. However, when the right opportunity for local government to help a community better itself does arise, there should be federal dollars available to help them accomplish that goal. That is what Congressman Ford voted for, NOT against civil rights! Trisha Favors If the Tennessean requested the same type of info it would never occur to a candidate not to respond. Yet this is a paper that has supported and endorsed Democrat after Democrat. The former omnibusman for the Chicago Trib (I think) spoke in a venue covered by CSPAN about how as a young reporter at the Tennessean he not only wrote a political speech (for a Democrat candidate) but he then wrote the review of that speech for the paper. Maybe, just maybe it's time for the Democratic candidates of this state to be put in a situation where they too have to deal with media outlets that aren't winking and grinning with them all the way to the presses. Posted by: Simon at July 11, 2005 5:57 PMI was unaware that Congressman Ford has weighed into this until you posted his comments on your site with your own thoughts. Everything he has said seems to be consistent, he for redevelopment when communities want/need it but he says (and voted to support this) that the Kelo decision went too far. How can anyone not see that? I don’t get the leap you are trying to make Mr. Hobbs. Posted by: Seth Towers at July 11, 2005 5:57 PMIf you ever get a chance to check out this documentary it is a textbook example on this subject. It deals with how people like Harold and his liberal constituency abuse poor blacks with Codes Laws and eminent domain. We've seen it happen in East Nashville. Northeastern liberals move into a historically black neighborhood for a "good deal" and then kick all the blacks out without regard to what happens to them. But hey, it's for the "greater good"! Ford can always use another coffee shop. Posted by: smantix at July 11, 2005 5:58 PMCongressman Ford is right, the Kelo decision went to far. He is also right that government should help areas of our state that need development or redevelopment. I read his editorial in Saturday’s Chattanooga Times Free Press and was shocked you could list it here on your web site along with his remarks on Teddy Bart and you could still mischaracterize what he is saying. Did you read this before you posted Mr. Hobbs? Harry of Chattanooga Posted by: Harry Nicholes at July 11, 2005 6:09 PMOn the radio show, Ford endorsed Kelo 100 percent and said it was a "positive" decision. Only later has he backtracked and modified his position to be both for and against Kelo at the same time. The only thing is, the things he says he favors were things that the government could do BEFORE Kelo - condemn blighted properties and redevelop them. Ford simply is wrong to say that Kelo is partly positive because it will help governments redevelop blighted areas - they could do so BEFORE Kelo. The homes being taken in the Kelo case WERE NOT BLIGHTED and WERE NOT IN A BLIGHTED AREA. They just were in an area that the government of New London, Conn., decided would generate more tax revenue if a private hotel developer owned it. That's it. Ford's problem is he says Kelo "goes to far" because it allows government to take property to enhance corporate profit - but of course Kelo didn't speak to that issue at all. What Kelo allows is for a city to take NON-BLIGHTED private property and give it to another private owner who will redevelop it into something that will pay more property tax. Kelo licenses government greed-driven property seizure. Most at risk: Poor people's homes, and churches - which pay no property tax. There is not one single church in Memphis that wouldn't generate more tax revenue for the city of Memphis if they replaced it with a mall, a gas station, or even a liquor store. Ford is trying to say Kelo "went to far" because it opens the door to eminent domain to enrich a corporation, but that's not what Kelo does at all - what Kelo does is open th door to eminent domain to enrich GOVERNMENT. My beef with Ford is he clearly still doesn't understand what Kelo really does, and he is trying to have it both ways. When he had a chance to vote to reign in Kelo, he voted no. His actions speak louder than his op-ed - and Ford's vote against the Garrett amendment puts him on the opposite issue from leaders in the Congressional Black Caucus, who view this as a civil rights issue. Simply put, property rights are foundational to civil rights. One way blacks and poor whites were kept from voting two centuries ago was the rule that voters had to own property. 200 years ago, blacks couldn't own property in America - they WERE property. 200 years later, the government may now take property from their descendants, force them to accept what the government says is "fair" compensation, and then give the property to a rich person to redevelop. It amuses me that all of the sudden there are a host of Ford defenders essentially saying the same thing. Did you all get the same memo? Posted by: Bill Hobbs at July 11, 2005 7:48 PMThis is hilarious. Posted by: Blake at July 11, 2005 8:48 PMI think Rep. Ford must read BillHobbs.com. Where in the world did all these pro-Ford/pro-Kelo commenters come from? All within just a few minutes of each other too. The decision in Kelo is most definitely a civil rights issue. Those most likely to be adversely affected by Kelo are poor minorities without the resources to fight the government's abuse of eminent domain authority. What Ford and these commenters are defending is a local government taking property from a poor person in a depressed area, giving them "market value" for their residential property (which isn't much), then rezoning that property commercial, thus greatly increasing it's value and selling it, or in some cases, GIVING it to a private developer to build something else on that will generate more tax revenue for the local government. It's criminal. I encourage these Ford supporters to check out the Institute for Justice's website (www.ij.org) for more information on how Kelo jeopardizes our private property rights. The Institute for Justive represented the Kelo's in their case against the City of New London, CT. The Institute for Justice began its fight against eminent domain abuse by successfully defending Vera Coking, an elderly widow from Atlantic City, against the condemnation of her home by a state agency that sought to take her property and transfer it (at a bargain-basement price) to another private individual: Donald Trump. Trump wanted the property for a limousine parking lot for his customers—hardly a public use. Posted by: JB at July 11, 2005 9:40 PMBill my friend, you once again missed the mark. Congressman Ford did not 100% endorse the decision on the radio show. He said the one aspect, which I mentioned above, was a positive. Then after you along with the Free Press mislead people on his position, he clarified what he meant. I think his op-ed explains his position very clearly. Just like any ruling or piece of legislation--it has pros and cons. What you did was run with what the Congressman said was a 'positive' in the ruling and say he gave a 100% endorsement to the ruling and that he voted against civil rights; which is just plain wrong and you know it. Chris D. Jackson Posted by: Chris D. Jackson at July 11, 2005 9:55 PMI for one have been a reader of this site for a while and finally decided to post to defend Harold against these false claims. Referring to the timing of the posts--notice all posts appear the actual time they are posted. Apparently they are reviewed by the admin and then posted. Therefore, no one really knows what time these posts were made. Just pointing that out. Posted by: Chris D. Jackson at July 11, 2005 10:52 PMI haven't seen stuck pigs squeal like that in quite some time. Bravo, Bill. People only react like that when you are telling the truth. Posted by: Lance at July 12, 2005 2:19 AMMy head exploded trying to make sense of just what the Congressman is for and against. Upon review, it seems to me that the Congressman supports the pre-Kelo eminent domain powers on the books in TN (slum and blight), regardless if he was aware what those powers were or that they already existed, and doesn't have a clue why the masses find the Kelo decision to be so alarming. Maybe if Shelby County condemns Bellevue Baptist Church (surely that taking can be easily justified under Kelo) or if the Memphis City Council decides to take Mississippi Blvd. Christian Church. . . . I am aware of more than a few Roosevelt Democrats in West Tennessee that are, let's just say *zealous*, about the prospect of voting against a Ford. If Jr. manages to win, they all plan to simply not vote during the general election. I am glad they have *some* sense. Posted by: kafir memphian at July 12, 2005 6:48 AMChris D. Jackson writes: "Just like any ruling or piece of legislation--it [Kelo] has pros and cons." Mr. Jackson seems to understand Rep. Ford's reasoning on Kelo. Perhaps he could enlighten the rest of us as to which parts Ford thinks are "a positive" and which parts are negative since Ford didn't respond to Bill's questions. Is the part where the Kelo's and their neighbors lose their homes so a private developer can build a hotel a positive or a negative? Is expanding the meaning of what's a "public use" to include economic development a positive or negative? (keep in mind, local governments ALREADY had the power to use eminent domain in "blighted" areas) Posted by: JB at July 12, 2005 7:32 AMChris Jackson wrote: Ford did not 100 percent endorse the decision on the radio show. He said the one aspect, which I mentioned above, was a positive. That's nice spin, but the that's not really what Ford said. He said: "I've always believed individual rights are a big thing... but, I find value in the court's decision. As long as people are compensated fairly, I can appreciate the decision. Certain areas in our state are crying for development, if this decision helps - it's a positive." That is not a qualified endorsement of one small part of Kelo. It is an endorsement of the core of the decision. Ford refers to finding "value" in the decision. Well, the only "value-added" that Kelo brings to the law is giving govt the right to take private property for any reason and give it to another private owner. Pre-Kelo, government could already take property for redevelopment for a "public use" but Kelo expands the meaning of "public use" to be "whatever the local legislature wants it to be." That's the only thing NEW in Kelo. So the question is, is that what Ford said he "finds value" in and considers "positive"? Because there is nothing else new in the Kelo decision. You can listen to Ford's whole statements about Kelo on the radio here: http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/006592.html Posted by: Bill Hobbs at July 12, 2005 9:18 AMRep. Ford is an intelligent and articulate person. He will have the opportunity to explain his position to the voters soon enough. Now, on to the real meat of this story, EMINENT DOMAIN. I had to think twice before I sent in my mortgage check this month. My dream, and the dream of most Americans, of home ownership just got flushed down the toilet by the highest court in the land. I live in a neighborhood in Thompson's Station only 2 houses from the intersection of 2 main roads. If I wanted to build a convenience store on that corner, I would be able to take my home and the home of several of my neighbors with minimal legal problems. It happened in New London, why not here??? Posted by: Jason at July 12, 2005 9:25 AMSome up above commented that "blighted redevelopment" would not be used against the poor, but that's exactly what happened in Ford's own Memphis district several years ago! It's still going on today. The City of Memphis used Federal funds to completely raze public housing downtown, promising to rebuild the same number of units. They didn't. Some of the land was used to create private and commercial development. A much smaller number of public housing units, though much nicer as well, were rebuilt. The folks who lost out got put into the Memphis housing market. Affordable rents for them are not in the City center, as in public housing, but out in the older suburban ring, where bus transportation is scarcer. Posted by: mike hollihan at July 12, 2005 11:52 AMYou've been "DUed". You can see it in the boilerplate responses. It should be an example to you in the future that your site is being monitored by the correct parties. Also, that Ford has already amassed a level of organization for a rapid response. Posted by: smantix at July 12, 2005 6:28 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
