The Missouri House began considering Rep. Hobbs’ eminent domain bill yesterday. First up at a hearing was Greg Smith, attorney for the takers:
Developers need the power to condemn private property to revitalize older, urban areas such as St. Louis, an attorney for business interests told legislators Tuesday.The message came from Greg Smith, who handed out photos to underscore his point. The pictures showed how a landscaped lot with a new Save-A-Lot store had replaced a burned-out shell of a business on the city’s north side.
“This is a valid public purpose,” Smith said. “We’re condemning this so residents have a grocery store within a reasonable distance of their homes.”
Mr. Smith misses the point on so many levels, it’s mind-boggling. If the city wants to develop a site currently housing a “burned-out shell of a business”, they can declare it blighted. Virtually everyone fighting eminent domain abuse thinks that condemnation of truly blighted property is acceptable, so long as the definition of blighted in sufficiently narrow. This would be permissible under the Hobbs bill.
Second, by focusing on the public “purpose” rather than public “use”, Smith continues the redefinition of the Constitution started by the Kelo court. Lots of things are a public purpose, but only some of them rise to the level of public use that allows taking of private property by the government. A grocery store is not a public use, regardless of the benefit to the public from not having to drive so far to buy peanut butter.
Finally, when you have to force people from their homes or businesses to make way for the Save-A-Lot, it doesn’t do those residents much good, does it?
Smith went on to make a statement that channels a bit too much Orwell for my taste.
The principle of eminent domain was built on the idea that “individual property rights must at times give way to the collective good,” Smith said.
There is some merit to this, of course. Roads, for example, are a proper function of local government, provide benefit to local citizens, are available for public use, and would not be possible but for the ability of the government to take land from individuals for just compensation. Local government is not (and should not be) in the grocery store development business. A new Save-A-Lot built on the backs of individuals who have property seized by government force is not a public use.
Hopefully the legislature will hear from some people who make more sense and understand the issue better.
