 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Coffee With Grover | Main | Don't Woof Your Food! » August 3, 2005Bredesen Silent on Kelo Ruling; Governor Making No Moves to Protect Private Property Rights in Tennessee
"When legislatures start new sessions in January, I expect the majority of states to take up bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes," said Larry Morandi, environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures. The issue has spawned an unusual alliance among conservatives opposed to the principle of government seizing private property and liberals worried that poor people would be the most likely victims. The actions are a swift response to a Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case. For the first time, it ruled that condemnation of private property solely for economic development was constitutional.In contrast to Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's rapid move to protect the rights of private property owners in his state, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredsen has done precisely nothing. A Google News search finds no news article in which Bredesen comments on the Kelo ruling. And this weeks Knoxville Metro Pulse reports that the Bredesen administration has, so far, ignored a formal request from a Knoxville group, Citizens for Home Rule, for a meeting on Kelo: John Emison, head of CHR, says he hasn’t heard from the Bredesen administration about the group’s request for a meeting to discuss the Kelo vs. New London, Conn. Supreme Court decision. CHR wants the state to forgo eminent domain projects until the Legislature has a chance to examine the issue and put in restrictions on the definition of "public use."CHR made the formal request in a letter [PDF] to Bredesen dated July 13 - more than two weeks ago. In the letter, Emison expressed alarm at "the unprecedented erosion of private property rights by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo v. New London" and asked Gov. Bredesen to adopt and publicly announce a policy that will ensure no one in Tennessee will lose their property by eminent domain to big corporations. In addition, Emison's letter called on the Governor to ensure that no other type of eminent domain condemnation be undertaken by the State unless it is both "necessary" and for an "actual public use." "It is way beyond outrageous that private property is subject to condemnation for the benefit of big business," Emison said. He's right. And it's more than a little concerning that Bredesen has not publicly addressed the erosion of private property rights under the Kelo ruling. Posted in Property Rights/Kelo
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Please Bill. Let's not be deceptive. This state, along with every city and county government within it, have snatched land for business development at every turn. The state government reluctantly adopted a bill some eight or ten years ago to "control" and "identify" growth boundaries on a 20 year plan. Naturally, the Legislature included a provision to revise those "boundaries" within just a few years, not 20. It kept in place the massive corporate welfare programs that allow industrial manufacturing companies to take private property, use tax dollars to pay for site development, and more tax dollars to lobby on behalf of that same business. Former Gov. Sundquist and others in his double-term, as well as Legislators, made sure to get all the wiggle-room they could. Joe - I don't claim that everything was perfect before Kelo. But Kelo is a radical change for the worse. Before Kelo there was at least some semblance of limit understood by the phrase "public use." After Kelo, there is none. Public use can be anything the legislature wants it to be. Well, we have a window of opportunity now, due to the general public outrage over Kelo, to reign in eminent domain a bit. And Kelo, for all its bad points, did explicitly say legislatures could curb eminent domain. So, let's use this window of opportunity to push things back in the right direction for a change. Alabama's governor did the right thing. Bredesen has done nothing. It is factual to point that out even if it also serves a partisan purpose. Bredesen wants to be re-elected. That means he will want to at least appear to do what the public wants him to do. It's a pressure point. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 4, 2005 06:32 AMWhat incentive do the politicians have to protect property owners rights? None. The corporate interests come in and give them promises or cash, there's more income to the state, and maybe they get their name on a building or something. The only disincentive is the fact that we vote but lately that doesn't seem to matter much. BTW-If you think Tenn. politicians suck, come to Louisiana. Believe me it's much worse. Posted by: roux at August 4, 2005 09:15 AMI disagree about any previous restraint of seizures of land -- public use has always meant whatever state legislators and local government wants. C'mon, tax grants for Wal-Mart?? Post 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!
|
|||||||||||
NASHVILLE - States across the country are rushing to pass laws to counter the potential impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that allows state and local governments to seize homes for private development, 