BillHobbs.com - Blogging about politics and media from Nashville.

There's a disturbing story in today's Tennessean about how the city of Nashville is trying to take a woman's private property and give it to a wealthy developer. This is the post-Kelo world we live in, a world in which your property is not your property if your government decides they want someone else to have it.

Frankly, every public official involved in this kind of misuse of power ought to be tarred, feathered and run out of town. The government's eminent domain powers ought to be strictly reserved for public-use projects like roads, schools and maybe public facilities like a convention center or stadium - not for a private developer's plan for a hotel, office building, stores and condominiums. And private developers should not be allowed to use a city's eminent domain powers in order to force a property owner to sell at whatever low price the developer wants to pay.

Welcome to post-Kelo hell. Didn't we pass a bill a couple of years ago after the Kelo ruling to address this issue on a state level?

Posted by: Iva Micchelle Russell at June 22, 2008 9:13 AM

I would like to know how they are ignoring the 2006 change in Tennessee Law.

Putnam County is also ignoring the new law by proceeding with a condemnation suit for a business park before getting a certificate of public need and an appraisal. There is also a case in Clarksville according to the Tennessean. There must be some kind of weasel-worded flaw in the law somewhere. Is the convention center and attached motel a factory now?

TCA 29-17-101
(2) "Public use" shall not include either private use or benefit, or the indirect public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunity, except as follows:

(A) The acquisition of any interest in land necessary for a road, highway, bridge, or other structure, facility, or project used for public transportation;

(B) The acquisition of any interest in land necessary to the function of a public or private utility, a governmental or quasi-governmental utility, a common carrier, or any entity authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain under title 65;

(C) The acquisition of property by a housing authority or community development agency to implement an urban renewal or redevelopment plan in a blighted area, as authorized by title 13, chapter 20, part 2 or title 13, chapter 21, part 2;

(D) Private use that is merely incidental to a public use, so long as no land is condemned or taken primarily for the purpose of conveying or permitting the incidental private use; or

(E) The acquisition of property by a county, city, or town for an industrial park, as authorized by title 13, chapter 16, part 2.

Posted by: Danny L. Newton at June 23, 2008 10:09 AM

State Rep. Tom DuBois, R-Columbia, sponsored the best eminent domain bill a while back, but the Democrats shot that down fast, lest the Republicans get the credit, and Tennessee ended up with a weak substitute. Please don't let Democrats continue to make laws in this state. They don't know what they're doing.

Posted by: Donna Locke at June 23, 2008 10:13 PM

June 21, 2008

Nashville Seeks to Take Private Property To Benefit Private Developer