July 10, 2005

Ford Backpedals on Kelo Praise

U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. appears to be backtracking on his statement that the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London - which is widely viewed as eviscerating private property rights in America - was a "positive" decision.

In an op-ed published in Saturday's Chattanooga Times-Free Press, Ford - who praised Kelo two weeks ago during a Nashville radio show - now says the decision went "too far."

Ford submitted the op-ed in response to a July 8 editorial in the same paper that the congressman and U.S. Senate candidate claims "mischaracterized my position" on the Kelo decision.

In the interest of fairness, I present the newspaper's editorial, followed by Ford's response, followed by a recap of what Ford said about Kelo on the Nashville radio show Teddy Bart's Round Table...

The Times Free-Press editorial:

Agreat many Americans are very much alarmed over the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that allows governments to seize homeowners’ private property for the benefit of other private interests. But Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. — who wants to be a United States senator — obviously is not one of them.

The Constitution reasonably allows governments to pay just compensation and condemn private property for necessary "public use." But the outrageous Supreme Court ruling in a New London, Conn., case allowed the city government to take the homes of 15 private owners so other private interests may build shopping, housing, conference and other facilities.

In justified protest against the court’s wrongful action, outraged members of the U.S. House of Representatives last week voted 231 to 189 for an amendment to block any federal funding for any city to carry out such an atrocious invasion of personal property rights. Most of the Tennessee delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, voted for the amendment — but not Rep. Ford.

Voting to protect private owners from having their homes taken for other private interests were Tennessee Republicans Zach Wa mp, Bill Jenkins, John Duncan, and Marsha Blackburn, and Tennessee Democrats Lincoln Davis, Bart Gordon and John Tanner.

But Democrat Rep. Ford astoundingly voted "No," against the defense of homeowners, supporting the seizure of private homes from their owners to benefit other private interests. Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper didn't vote.

Tennesseans should be very much concerned to find that a congressman running for the United States Senate has such little regard for private homeowners’ rights to protect their own homes from unconscionable land grabs.

Is he the kind of candidate Tennesseans should even consider?

Let me be clear: I support the rights of homeowners and business owners. Our nation was founded in part on the fundamental right to own property, and government cannot take that right away arbitrarily.

That is why I voted in favor of a resolution co-sponsored by the chairman and the senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee expressing Congress' disapproval of the court's decision and our firm support of the rights of property owners.

The court's decision opens the door to the erosion of the sanctity of private property in our nation.

I do not want my home, business or farm - or that of my neighbors - to be confiscated by the government simply to put in a new venue for corporate profit.

However, the importance of economic rehabilitation in many of our urban and rural communities cannot and should not be ignored.

It is critical for the democratically elected officials in our communities to have the ability to seek, with support of property owners, the revitalization of local economies, the creation of much-needed jobs and the reversal of blight, crime or poverty in that community.

And that is where the Supreme Court's decision goes too far.

It does not denote the critical difference between rehabilitation with the consent of property owners versus development and redevelopment simply for corporate profit.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

Thankfully, though, the court's decision defers in the end to state law, leaving the fate of Tennessee communities in the right place - Tennessee, not Washington.

I voted against the Garrett amendment because it, like the Supreme Court decision, goes too far.

If the Garrett amendment becomes law, any initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that involves private development or investment, like Hope VI, could be put in jeopardy.

Just in Tennessee's four largest cities, Hope VI provided more than $230 million between 1993 and 2004 - $5.2 million in Chattanooga, $23.7 million in Knoxville, $113.7 million in Memphis and $88.9 million .

I understand and support the need to clarify the Kelo decision. Unfortunately, the Garrett amendment was the wrong way to do it.

I am committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to develop a policy that makes sense.

"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."

Let's be clear: Before Kelo, government already could use its powers of eminent domain to take private property for redevelopment for "public use." What Kelo allows is government to take your house, business or church and give it to another private owner to redevelop it, solely because the new project will generate more tax revenue. That's it.

Ford endorsed that - "as long as people are compensated fairly", though it is government that is taking your property that, ultimately, decides what "fair" compensation is.

Now, however, Ford is trying back-pedal from that endorsement, realizing that popular opinion is very strong against the Kelo decision - and that four of the other five candidates running for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee have condemned Kelo (the lone question mark being wealthy real estate developer and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker).

You can hear the full audio clips of Ford's statements about Kelo here.

I have emailed Rep. Ford twice since the Kelo decision was handed down, inviting him to state his position on the decision. He so far has not responded. So, let's reconsider his op-ed and parse his words carefully and see if they match reality:

Let me be clear: I support the rights of homeowners and business owners.

Our nation was founded in part on the fundamental right to own property, and government cannot take that right away arbitrarily.

That is why I voted in favor of a resolution co-sponsored by the chairman and the senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee expressing Congress' disapproval of the court's decision and our firm support of the rights of property owners.

The court's decision opens the door to the erosion of the sanctity of private property in our nation.

I do not want my home, business or farm - or that of my neighbors - to be confiscated by the government simply to put in a new venue for corporate profit. However, the importance of economic rehabilitation in many of our urban and rural communities cannot and should not be ignored.

It is critical for the democratically elected officials in our communities to have the ability to seek, with support of property owners, the revitalization of local economies, the creation of much-needed jobs and the reversal of blight, crime or poverty in that community. And that is where the Supreme Court's decision goes too far. It does not denote the critical difference between rehabilitation with the consent of property owners versus development and redevelopment simply for corporate profit.

The city of New London, Conn., wasn't seizing the homes "simply to put in a new venue for corporate profit." The city's goal, the "public use" that it claimed allowed it to seize the properties via eminent domain, was not to help a corporation make a profit, but to enhance the city's tax revenue. The problem with Kelo is that it has rendered meaningless the constitutional limitation on government's eminent domain powers meant by the phrase "public use" by ruling that "public use" is whatever the local government decides it is. In New London, they decided it was higher tax revenue. As a practical matter, Kelo says government can kick out the lower income people and give their property to wealthy folks to redevelop, because "higher tax revenue" is a "public use." Are you going to tell the folks in inner city Memphis that's a good thing?

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

Thankfully, though, the court's decision defers in the end to state law, leaving the fate of Tennessee communities in the right place - Tennessee, not Washington.

I voted against the Garrett amendment because it, like the Supreme Court decision, goes too far.

If the Garrett amendment becomes law, any initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that involves private development or investment, like Hope VI, could be put in jeopardy.

Just in Tennessee's four largest cities, Hope VI provided more than $230 million between 1993 and 2004 - $5.2 million in Chattanooga, $23.7 million in Knoxville, $113.7 million in Memphis and $88.9 million .

I understand and support the need to clarify the Kelo decision. Unfortunately, the Garrett amendment was the wrong way to do it.

I am committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to develop a policy that makes sense.