Lew Rockwell was right. In his article, “Where’s the Kelo Calamity?” he asks:
“Did the nightmare begin? Some local governments that had been waiting for a ruling took advantage of the situation and pushed ahead with plans for confiscating properties. But far more important is the flurry of legislative activity that it has spawned. Twenty-five states and hundreds of localities are working to enact laws against this type of takings. Property owners became concerned and pushed for legislation, which they are getting. Imagine that! But this is precisely how the system is supposed to work.”
Now we see that Alabama has become the first state to curb eminent domain abuse after Kelo. According to the Institute for Justice, “Alabama legislation prohibits cities and counties from using eminent domain for private development or for enhancing tax revenue.” The IFJ also points out that Connecticut legislators have called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain until their legislatures can revise property laws. Even the City of New London has agreed to allow Susette Kelo to stay in her property for now.
{ 12 comments }
Nobody’s right all the time. Lew’s time will come.
No, I think Lew was wrong once in his life: He thought he was wrong about something, but it turned out he was right!
If it’s bad from a decentralist viewpoint for the federal government to restrict the states’ power to exercise eminent domain, isn’t it similarly bad for states to restrict local governments’ ability to use it, as they are here?
It seems to me that we must concede that it is if we are to be consistent. Obviously, it’s not as bad as the feds restricting the states, but it’s still bad, isn’t it?
Yes, it is bad for the states to do likewise. The feds are usually worse at destroying our liberties, but the states often do the same. One problem with the state/local government issue is that local communities do not have a federal relationship with the states like the states have a federal relationship with the federal government. Hope this clears thinks up.
You state:
<
It seems to me that we must concede that it is if we are to be consistent. Obviously, it's not as bad as the feds restricting the states, but it's still bad, isn't it? >>
What are you a decentralist statist or a free enterprise capitalist?
It’s bad for the feds to control the states, it’s bad for the states to control the towns but how do you sit silent on an expansion of government power to sieze private property?
Market efficiency can NEVER be served by expanding government’s power, period.
It’s ludicrous to insist you are helping the cause of blocking new government powers by separating out the government’s resposibilties at different levels to restrict themselves. Feds can’t sieze property for private use, states can’t and towns can’t. Saying the states and feds should turn a blind eye because it’s a lower level of government is altogether dumb in my view.
What if your home owners association posted a check on your door for your house’s fair market value and you got atrrested for not cashing it and getting the hell out. Should the town police not get involved when you call them to say someone is breaking into your house and squatting there? After all the association feels the neighborhood good is served by you getting the hell out, why elevate it to a higher level of government?
Indeed,
its important to realize that local governments in the US are basically in existance at the whim of the state itself. While the states formed the federal government, they also formed their individual local governments. Or, officially:
People to State to (Local Federal)
Or so most of the history I’ve read suggests (its almost never perfectly clean, of course).
For this reason, while personal belief may be that the more local it is the better, the idea remains that the state can disband, reformulate, or otherwise shift the structure of local governance at its pleasure (assuming such power is not restricted in that state’s individual constitution).
It’s sort of like complaining if the President ordered the IRS to refrain from something that the order should’ve come from Mark Everson.
I know, of course, that cities are state creations, while the states are not a federal creation. But so what? States can still keep their hands off the cities and leave them to take care of their own affairs, and that is what I, as a non-centralist, prefer. The IRS example is inapposite because everyone is a fed in that case. Local governments, however, have locally elected leaders and geographically limited jurisdiction.
And of course, although cities are state creations, they should nonetheless have a right to secede from the state that created them.
I certainly agree with you, Mr. Huebert. States should keep their hands off the cities and cities should have the right to secede. Down with all government–federal, state, and local.
Here’s to hoping someone scans the sidebar.
The evicted homeowners are being charged tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in back-rent since they lived on ‘city land’ since 2000 — the ‘effective’ date of the city’s takeover. They’ll also be paid the market value in 2000, as opposed to what they’d get on the market today.
http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
The states are allegedly the “local guarantors” of rights spelled out in their constitutions, but do their constitutions simply constrain STATE action while allowing county, township and town governments to have 10th-Amendment-style powers? Unfortunately, I think it is a mixed bag – many state constitutions have “positive” rights clauses in them. For a story local to me, and my attempt at a Misesian analysis, go here:
http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=885
The latest news on Kelo is available here:
http://www.globest.com/news/407_407/washington/139906-1.html
I hate to be a messenger of bad news but… Don’t think these states are giving freedom and private property rights their due. The Alabama example mentioned still allows takings for “Blighted” (read a lot of) property. Besides, the loss of these “privileges” is only one ballot initiative or worse one court judgment away from continuing these takings no matter how they are worded. Read “Public Use”.
As for centralization vs. de-centralization, the 14th Amendment provides all citizens the privileges and immunities (Two state oriented terms, the Declaration of Independence never mention privileges but inalienable rights) of the US Constitution. That should mean that the US Constitution is the base and the states can go beyond it in securing rights but again according to corrupt courts, it means something else.
Comments on this entry are closed.