July 12, 2005

Ford Responds on Kelo Questions

U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr, D-Memphis, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has answered the six questions I posed on June 23 regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. I posed the six questions on this blog and also in an email to all six candidates running for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, promising to post their responses verbatim. Ford's respond is virtually identical to his op-ed published a few days ago in the Chattanooga Times-Free Press. Here is Ford's response...

As much controversy has surrounded the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, let me make 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. To do so would be legally and morally wrong. 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, a slippery slope from the standpoint of public policy. 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.

I am therefore committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to develop an eminent domain policy that protects property rights of
individuals without threatening the ability of state and local governments to revitalize their communities.

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 rejuvenation of local economies, the creation of much-needed jobs and the reversal of blight, crime or poverty in that community.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision goes too far because it fails to denote the critical difference between rehabilitation with the consent of property owners on the one hand and development solely for corporate profit on the other. Legislatures in at least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - understand this important distinction, having banned the use of eminent domain for economic development except 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.

Much has been made of my vote against the Garrett amendment, which would bar the use of federal funds for any private development project using land obtained by eminent domain. I voted against the Garrett amendment because it, like the Supreme Court decision, goes too far. If the Garrett amendment becomes law, it could lead us down a dangerous path, putting in jeopardy any initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that involves
private development or investment, such as Hope VI.

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, $88.9 million and $113.7 million in Memphis. Without these federal funds, state and local governments will be forced to pick up the tab for community redevelopment efforts, meaning taxpayers will foot the bill through higher property taxes.

Congress needs to clarify how state and local governments are permitted to use eminent domain. Unfortunately, the Garrett amendment was the wrong way to do it. In the coming months, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to develop a policy that makes sense.

-30-