Home
 

ALG in the News: The great Obama land grab

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column by Michelle Malkin, ALG's own national correspondent Rebekah Rast's piece on the Obama land grab is quoted:

The great Obama land grab

By Michelle Malkin

Have you heard of the “Great Outdoors Initiative”? Chances are, you haven’t. But across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It’s another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life.

In April, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors.” It was addressed to the Interior Secretary, the Agriculture Secretary, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The memo calls on the officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to “identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government” to “protect” outdoor spaces. Eighteen of 25 planned sessions have already been held. But there’s much more to the agenda than simply “reconnecting Americans to nature.”

The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly one of every three acres in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.” ...

Indeed, the feds have enough trouble as it is managing the vast amount of land they already control. As the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Limited Government group, which defends private property rights, points out: “The (National Park Service) claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to grab new lands.”

Get full story here.

Taking What is Not Yours

By Rebekah Rast

The federal government has an insatiable spending appetite. Most Americans already know that. But it appears to have an insatiable land-grabbing appetite as well.

“The Obama Administration has a lot of ideas when it comes to deciding what to do with other people’s private property,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG).

Don’t be fooled by Obama’s plan for America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. The claims are more land is in need of protection and more American’s should have the benefit of seeing the great outdoors in their natural state, but the government already owns 1 out of every 3 acres in the U.S. — 1 out of every 2 acres in the West, says Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), a member on the Natural Resources Committee and ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

There is no end in sight to how much more land this current Administration seems to want. Claiming the need to create ecosystems throughout America, the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service hope to extend their political boundaries and expand to privately owned land.

These organizations need the help of the Department of Interior, which ironically enough, is the only federal government department that holds the power of eminent domain.

Never mind that the 5th amendment in the Constitution of the United States reads, “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Instead, the government is working to a different end, hoping to circumvent Congress and put to practice the Antiquities Act and Endangered Species Act to complete its mission.

With the federal government already owning about one-third of the land in the U.S., where is the money coming from to take care of these lands?

The truth is, there isn’t enough money flowing out of the Department of Interior to support the budgets needed for the BLM or NPS.

“In order to keep up existing parks it would take billions of dollars we don’t have,” says Richard Pombo, former Chairman on the House Committee on Natural Resources.

The NPS claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to grab new lands. How does the government expect to fund any of its new acquisitions?

On July 15, 2010, the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act (CLEAR Act) of 2009, passed in the Natural Resources Committee. This legislation, which was to deal with the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, contains plans for the federal government to acquire more land.

In a speech on the House floor after the bill passed in Committee, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) pointed out that a provision tucked inside the CLEAR Act allows the federal government to spend $900 million a year to purchase private land over the next 30 years.

“This is a new way to fund the Department of Interior and satisfy its need for more land,” says Congressman Bishop. He also points out that none of this money would go to maintaining the land the government already owns, but only would provide funding for the acquisition of “treasured lands.”

As if restricting use on about 30 percent of the total land mass in the U.S. wasn’t enough, about 108 million acres owned by the government are labeled wilderness areas. Former Congressman Pombo explains that inside a wilderness area, no motorized activity is allowed. While some restricted federal lands might let you go four-wheeling or snowmobiling, wilderness areas do not.

This poses a problem because state economies aren’t able to prosper off the federally owned land contained in their own state by ways of real estate, mining natural resources, or even for building schools. Instead, they are told by the government that they will reap the benefits of tourism, former Congressman Pombo says. But when the area is so restricted that certain recreational activities aren’t permitted, tourism to these lands takes a hit and so does the economy of the state.

“When the federal government owns the land, we can’t fund schools or pay teachers — people don’t have jobs — people in Washington, D.C., don’t have to live in those conditions. They don’t understand the consequences,” says Rep. Bishop because most of the land grabbing is in the Western part of the U.S.

Former Congressman Pombo echoes those concerns. “The Eastern states don’t understand, people in the West do,” he says. “The government owns about half of California, people don’t know that.”

And yet that’s still not enough for the government. And who can stop it?

Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Association located in Washington State, has dedicated his life to stopping federal land grabs.

“Our job is to protect private property and private land from being taken over by the government,” says Cushman.

Cushman got his start 35 years ago when the NPS tried to take his house, which was near Yosemite National Park. “We stopped them and we formed an organization.”

He has had many successes over the years. His organization has helped individuals, communities and other organizations fight against their private lands being taken by the government in states like Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. “We help people locally. We teach them how to fight back.

“Most local groups confuse emotion with action,” he goes on to say. “Most groups understand the problem but not the solution. We show them the solution.”

Cushman says the solution is people — activists. “People need to get lists together and get them motivated to take action.” Cushman has a rolodex of several million names. That is his best weapon against government land grabs — and it has worked well for him.

It is a continuing battle that isn’t letting up. Cushman understands his rights as a property owner and doesn’t buy into the government’s agenda of roping off more land to create ecosystems.

“This Administration has largely ceded control of the environment to environmental groups,” Cushman says. “The enemy is the landowner and people who use land for agriculture, mining and recreation.”

Pombo agrees and goes on to say, “They are appeasing their political supporters. That’s all it is. They have gone so far as to making public lands off limits.”

Despite consequences of destroyed local economies, higher unemployment, over population of breeds and lack of money for upkeep, the federal government is hell bent on restoring heavily rich land to unusable ecosystems.

“It is a silly idea that land has to be wild and free,” says Rep. Bishop.

ALG’s Wilson concurs and adds, “The idea of returning land back to its original state before people walked the earth is simply an attack on humanity. The government already has control of more land than it can take care of. Enough is enough.”

Throughout America’s history, citizens of this country have fought for what is theirs. If the government thinks it can take more of what constitutionally belongs to its people, it won’t happen without a fight. How wrong and corrupt a government must be that it would seize the private property of its citizens and cordon it off to serve no further purpose.

Rebekah Rast is the national correspondent of the Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

America's Land Grab

By Rebekah Rast

Do you remember the folksy song “This Land is Your Land”?

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

Well, if you head west you will quickly realize that much of the land is not yours — it’s theirs — the federal government’s.

In fact, the federal government owns almost 650 million acres of land in the U.S. That’s about 30 percent of all the land area in the nation and includes national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

This federal government land grabbing can have negative impacts on job markets, economic development and tax revenues for those states.

“The federal government has more control over the economy of states than elected governors and legislatures do,” says Don Todd, senior research director at Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “The feds decide where you can fish and harvest.”

A state that knows this all too well is Utah. More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the federal government and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and other policy makers say it creates problems for the state, and they want their land back.

In late May 2010, Gov. Herbert authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of their land back from the federal government. He is hoping to spur the rest of the western states to do the same thing.

By the federal government claiming ownership of their land, it restricts economic development for those resource-rich states. Because these states are not allowed to benefit from economic development on these federal-government protected lands, it greatly limits their overall economic growth.

Though the state of Utah might not win its battle against the federal government, lawmakers there believe what they are doing is necessary and that the government should keep its hands off their land.

But that likely won’t happen. In a memo leaked to a Utah Congressman from the Department of Interior, the Administration has a wish list of more land it would like to takeover — and yes, on that list is much more land from the western states.

Some of these land grabs, which the Administration hopes to make into monuments — meaning they will have to remain untouched by the state, exceed the size of the states of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. What’s worse, the Administration can make this decision on its own, without state or congressional approval. How? The Antiquities Act of 1906. This law gives presidents the right to designate any area of land that presents historic or scientific significance as federally owned land.

Though it is likely the Administration will only choose two to three out of the 14 eligible areas highlighted in the memo to designate as monuments, it will still greatly impact these states giving them less land to develop and grow.

Much of the decision-making comes down to who knows who. In the case of Nevada — where more than 80 percent of the state is owned by the federal government — Sen. Harry Reid gets exactly what he wants out of this Administration, on or off federally owned land.

Despite Nevada residents suffering from a 13.7 percent unemployment rate, Sen. Reid still found it favorable to the state to block a pit mining operation on federally owned land, which was intended for such a project. This mine would have provided millions of tons of sand and rock throughout the next 20 years to be used by companies for cement and other purposes.

In an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Sen. Reid is quoted as saying, “The potential negative impacts of the proposed operation far outweigh any benefit the mine may provide. This legislation makes sure that the proposed gravel operations at Sloan Hills will not go forward.”

Way to hurt the very industry Nevada was founded upon, not to mention possibly putting more residents of the state out of work.

Money was lost and hundreds of jobs that could have boosted Nevada’s economy are now gone. When will Nevadans wake up and realize what is being done to their state — especially by those who are supposed to have the state’s best interests in mind?

“It is difficult to measure jobs that have disappeared as a result of federal land grabs and political favors because you don’t see them. Nevada is a good example,” says Todd. “It’s a tragedy that people don’t see.”

Other states are suffering as a result of federal land ownership.

Just look at what has happened to the logging industry in Washington State. It’s virtually gone. Because of protected forestry laws, small towns that survived off of the logging industry were choked out. Sawmills are shuttered, and timber men are unemployed. Formerly thriving areas have essentially become ghost towns.

“The forest service holds life or death over the timber industry,” Todd says. “They have leases that decide where to sell timber or whether or not a road can be built to get the timber out.”

Federal land grabs, political favors, regulators and laws restricting use are causing a slow death for the very industries that created America and made her what she is today.

The state of Utah is taking action to protect itself from the consequences of being choked by the federal government. Until other states do the same, the federal government will continue to pick away at America’s land and long-established industries.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to ALG News Bureau.

Not for Sale

By Rebekah Rast

As the adage goes, if you give a mouse a cookie he’s going to want a glass of milk. The same is true when government attempts to exercise power outside its boundaries.

Eminent domain, a process in which a state can take over private property for public use in exchange for market-value compensation, was established by our Founding Fathers as a way for America to better herself for the good of the people. It was primarily meant to be used to build roads and provide public right of ways for a growing nation.

“Eminent domain is for public use, for roads and schools,” says Christina Walsh, director of activism and coalitions for the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm. “It is not simply to transfer property to someone who has more money and more power.”

Throughout the nation are cases where government at all levels is seizing property for private profit — whether it be a new shopping center, condominiums or to expand a current business. State and local governments are exercising powers beyond their limits to fund corporate welfare and for their own economic growth.

A case that received national criticism by property owners was the 2005 Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. City of New London. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New London, Connecticut, to wipe out an entire neighborhood for hotels and offices to better complement pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s new corporate facility.

Lead plaintiff, Susette Kelo’s land went to private developers to fund corporate welfare. But that’s not all. New London and Connecticut spend about $78 million to clear the land for condos and other specialty components. Four years after that decision, Pfizer decided to move out, leaving the government-seized land barren and empty. Not only was a neighborhood lost for nothing, but millions of dollars was also wasted.

“This was an unconscionable decision made by the Supreme Court,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “Eminent domain should never be used as a power grab to benefit the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the people.”

As this Supreme Court decision sent shockwaves around the country, many states reformed their eminent domain laws. Walsh says 43 states have taken steps to protect the rights of property owners and about half of those states have made significant reforms.

“In the wake of the Kelo decision, people found out about the abuse of power and communities starting rallying around property owners,” Walsh says. “There have been dozens of successes over the years for property owners.”

Some states still have done nothing to reform current laws dealing with eminent domain. New York is one of those states and is currently in battles to seize land from many private property owners for its own economic development.

Current New York law considers property in “blight” conditions, a condition of disrepair, to be able to be seized by eminent domain procedures. With a loose definition of what “blight” conditions look like, many corporations and cities have seized on opportunities to takeover properties they justify as “blighted.”

In the case of Kaur vs. Urban Development Corporation, there is controversial use of eminent domain by Columbia University, a private school, which wants to build a new 17-acre research campus in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville.

Manhattanville business owners’ lead attorney and former New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Norman Siegel was able to prove that Columbia and Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) conspired together to produce the conditions of “blight” that would then allow the ESDC to seize the property wanted by the university. He also found that many of the “blighted” buildings were already owned by Columbia and it was the university’s responsibility to clean them up. Because the university was not keeping the buildings and spaces up to code, many of the businesses in the area were forced to move out.

Last December a state appellate court struck down the ESDC’s actions as illegal. The case was then heard by the Court of Appeals on June 1, and a ruling is expected sometime this summer.

Siegel and those opposed to eminent domain in this case are hopeful for a win.

New York State Senator Bill Perkins (D-Manhattanville) echoed the confidence of a win in a Columbia Spectator article. He said, “All the lawyers, all of us, have proven that the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability with regard to the eminent domain process is something that needs to be changed, and we have successfully challenged that.”

As more and more property owners and communities are waking up to the government’s manipulations of eminent domain, there is hope that more laws and regulations will fall into place to protect property owners.

After all, one of the greatest freedoms in America is the right to own private property.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to ALG News Bureau.

Do Discrimination Laws Actually Help?

By Josiah Schmidt

“A great bachelor pad for any single man looking to hook up,” is how Stonebridge Apartments, a complex in my hometown of Dayton, Ohio, advertised its studio apartments on CraigsList. For that, they face a lawsuit from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Miami Valley Fair Housing Center. For discrimination.

Still confused? The Dayton Daily News explained in its most recent issue: the Fair Housing Center took offense to the ad because, by advertising specifically to “bachelors,” Stonebridge’s ads were “suggesting families were not welcome.” Now, Stonebridge is being sued for $25,000 and a mandate that the apartment firm’s employees receive mandatory “fair housing law training.”

First off, there are a couple glaring logical fallacies at work here. The first being that just because someone speaks favorably of one thing, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re speaking unfavorably of another thing. To say that encouraging bachelors to live in your apartment complex means discouraging couples from living in your apartment complex, is like saying that to love the color red means to hate the color blue.

Furthermore, if we are to broaden the legal definition of “discrimination” to include everything, then everyone is guilty of all kinds of discrimination. You are guilty of discrimination when you consciously choose to only date other bachelors or bachelorettes–after all, you are discriminating against people who are already in relationships! Apartment complexes that forbid pets are discriminating against pet-owners. Apartment complexes that advertise their apartments as being $500/month are discriminating against people who cannot afford to pay $500/month. The list could go on and on.

This particular case is, of course, one of the more absurd and twisted examples of political correctness run amuck in this country. But the issue raised goes much deeper, and has important implications for the notion of private property rights. The real question is: are government laws against “discrimination” really even necessary?

Let’s examine what happens in a free and unhindered market when discrimination on the basis of some superficial characteristic (race, for instance) occurs. Let us say that Restaurant Owner Joe hates black people and will not serve them. If 10% of the population of his town is black, Joe has effectively alienated 10% of his potential customer base, right off the bat. The presence of a large population of blacks who want to visit a restaurant presents a profit opportunity for any of Joe’s competitors who are savvy enough to take advantage of it. As Joe’s racism continuously results in lost profit opportunities for himself, and increased profits for his non-racist competitors, Joe continuously has less and less market power, while Joe’s competitors gain more and more market power. The free market ceaselessly punishes those entrepreneurs who are too stupid or bigoted to take advantage of profit opportunities, and rewards those entrepreneurs who serve as many consumers as possible.

In fact, just the other day, I found a flier underneath my windshield wiper advertising an “Alternative Lifestyle” (i.e. gay and lesbian) Night at a local bar. The bar owner, who I speak with often, has nothing good to say about gays, and commonly refers to them with a two word pejorative (each word beginning with the letter “f”). However, there is a sizable gay and lesbian community in this area, and–without any government prodding whatsoever–he saw the profitability of not just holding his nose and serving homosexuals, but going out of his way to cater specifically to them.

But what about if an employer discriminates against hiring a particular employee, based on some superficial characteristic? Let’s say that Restaurant Owner Joe gets two applicants for a job–Greg, who has light skin, and Chris, who has dark skin. Greg, if hired, would bring in $7 of revenue per hour for Joe (i.e. Greg’s marginal revenue product is $7/hour). Chris, if hired, would bring in $8 of revenue per hour for Joe (i.e. Chris’s marginal revenue product is $8/hour). Joe, who hates blacks, decides to hire light-skinned Greg, instead of dark-skinned Chris. However, Joe’s competitor, Sally, sees Chris’s potential, and hires him. Not only does Joe miss out on $1 in opportunity costs every hour, for not hiring dark-skinned Chris, but Sally (Joe’s competitor) outproduces Joe to the tune of $1 every hour. As Joe misses out on lost profit opportunities, while his competitors reap it in, Joe loses more and more market power, while his competitors gain.

So, what good do government “discrimination” laws really do? Nada.

Not only are these regulations superfluous (since they compel businesses to do what market forces would eventually compel them to do anyway), they waste businesses’ time and money that could be spent actually serving consumers; the fines and penalties imposed on businesses divert resources from productive market activities to unproductive bureaucratic activities; the salaries of the bureaucrats necessary to enforce these regulations also represent a diversion of resources from productive to unproductive activities; and perhaps worst of all, these legal precedents dilute the concept of private property rights, which has served as the bedrock of all the past several centuries’ phenomenal increases in prosperity and living standards, which all Americans have benefited from.

The Miami Valley Fair Housing Center and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission may feel that they are helping the downtrodden, but they are doing nothing more than wasting time and resources.

Josiah Schmidt is a Liberty Features Syndicate contributor for Americans for Limited Government.

The Continuing Federal Land Grab

By Michael Swartz

The use and abuse of the Antiquities Act, legislation which dates back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt, is nothing new. While the bulk of the national monuments so created came in the first few decades after the Act’s 1906 adoption, the practice of creating them was again accelerated with President Carter creating 15 national monuments out of Alaskan territory in 1978. By doing so he throttled the resource development of these areas and angered local officials who wanted Washington’s hands off the land.

In recent times, the usage of Antiquities’ declarative power has been almost strictly a Democratic practice – by comparison, neither Ronald Reagan nor George H.W. Bush used the Antiquities Act in this manner during their terms and President George W. Bush did but twice. President Clinton established a total of 19 national monuments, mainly as he was preparing to leave office in 2001.

But a recently leaked internal memo from the Department of the Interior (DOI) detailing thirteen new prospective national monuments may show that President Obama is interested in continuing the recent liberal environmentalist practice of locking resource-rich lands away from development. In fact, this very reason is cited in the memo to preserve Colorado’s Vermillion Basin, a “unique high desert basin (which) is currently under threat of oil and gas development, which would forever alter the region.” Other areas are cited as “critical long-term movement corridors for…wildlife” or “pristine desert wilderness landscapes.”

Once word got out about the proposed land grab the DOI backtracked, calling the memo a product of a “brainstorming session.” But it shows the attitude that placing land off-limits to development and perhaps a higher and better usage is more important to some than the benefits the resources on or underneath the land may provide. The land hasn’t changed perceptively since the previous administration left the White House, but the bureaucrats who have been itching to turn the West back into the wilderness it once was by creating “migration corridors” or placing areas out of reach for human interaction had to wait until they had an ally in the White House to again make their move.

Needless to say, a number of Congressional representatives from western states are unhappy. Their cause was led by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who is credited with making this DOI memo public.

Their biggest concern is the potential lost revenue for state and local governments, who already deal with the burden of hosting a huge percentage of federally-owned land within their borders. West of the Great Plains, the federal government owns at least 30 percent of the land mass in every state but Hawaii, with Nevada leading the way – the federal government owns over 4/5 of Silver State land. Aside from those twelve states, only three others have more than ten percent federally owned land with most of the rest checking in at five percent or less. Overall, Washington bureaucrats own about 30 percent of our total land mass but apparently would like to take millions more acres through Presidential mandate.

The DOI’s evaluation seemingly fails to ask how placing areas off-limits is going to affect job creation and local economies, and may not be considering the financial ramifications of taking care of the land once acquired. If areas have unique and wondrous features it’s doubtful that the public will want them to remain hidden from their view.

It seems the only thing hidden from public view is the process and perhaps that’s intentional, knowing the outcry from affected states and individual landowners would be deafening.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Killing Kelo in Virginia

By Isaac MacMillen

After the infamous Kelo vs. City of New London ruling, in which the Supreme Court decreed that government can take private property for private business use, concerned legislators began working to enact state-level protections against any such seizures. By July 2007—just over 2 years from the fateful decision—42 of the 50 states had responded by enacting some sort of property rights protection for their citizens.

Virginia was one of those 42 states, passing legislation which limited the use of eminent domain to “public” uses. However, it left the definition of “public use” to the legislature, leaving room for the vital legislation to be undone by pernicious landgrabbers.

But Virginia Senators Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) and Ralph Smith (R-Botetourt County) have now proposed legislation that would enshrine these vital protections into the state Constitution's Bill of Rights. The current Bill of Rights prohibits “any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term "public uses" to be defined by the General Assembly”—and some politicians have been busy torturing that term.

So the new Senate Joint Resolution 290 would replace it with the following:

“That the General Assembly shall not pass any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation. The term "public uses" under this section shall be defined by the General Assembly. No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use.

“Private property may not be taken when the primary purpose is private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or tax revenues, or an increase in employment; however, this restriction shall not apply to the taking of private property for the creation or functioning of a public service corporation, public service company, or railroad.”

If passed, this legislation would outlaw the primary negative effect of Kelo—the taking of private property for private use. Additionally, it places limits on the amount of property that may be taken, even for public uses—and then, no more than absolutely necessary. All of which is a definite step in the right direction. However, there are two types of eminent domain this bill does not address: Regulatory taking and “blighting.” And the landgrabbers are already trying to exploit the loopholes.

A regulatory taking occurs when a government regulates an individual's property to the point that the individual is not able to use his or her land in the most economically viable way. Essentially, individuals lose the right to use their property as they wish. While certain regulations (e.g. zoning laws) have been deemed by the courts to be acceptable, conservative lawmakers and jurists have long held that they should be viewed as the exception, and not the rule.

Similarly, governmental regulation can result in “blighting:” the devaluing of an individual's property. Blighting can also occur from physical measures, an extreme example being the building of a jail next to the private property in question.

As can be easily discerned, both regulatory taking and blighting are underhanded means for a greedy government to seize private property while sidestepping restrictions on eminent domain. And both should be addressed to ensure that the intent of SJR 290 is not thwarted.

But even with the amendment's flaws, Senators Obenshain and Smith have done a great service for the freedom-loving people of Virginia. As the bill goes before the Committee on Priviledges and Elections on Tuesday, Virginia residents can look forward to the day when they will be able to finally breathe a sign of relief, as worries of unjust government take-overs will be relegated to history. But first, this legislation needs to pass the committee. And concerned citizens would be well-advised to contact the committee (at 804-698-7450) to demand passage of the legislation.

When the Kelo decision was initially handed down, the High Court likely had little idea how much public reaction it would generate. In fact, a 2005 survey by the Saint Index, a polling organization specializing in land uses issues, revealed that 81 percent of Americans opposed the Kelo decision.

Fortunately, the public backlash revealed not only that American citizens still prize their constitutional freedoms, it also spurred a nationwide rejection of eminent domain in any form. And if SJR 290 is passed, the people of Virginia will have struck a great blow for property rights—which can be replicated by concerned citizens nationwide.

Isaac MacMillen is a contributing editor of ALG News Bureau.

An Ominous Sign


“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” – John Adams

Private property has lost a lot of sacredness in the eyes of the Dallas City Council.

An editorial published yesterday in the Dallas Morning News praised a recent decision by the city council to place new and tougher restrictions on convenient store and shop owners in the Texas city. The editorial mentions that a significant number of these stores have gone “to the extreme” with regard to copious amount of widow sign advertisements. As it states:

“Fortunately, the Dallas City Council is calling a halt to this practice with new restrictions that limit what percentage of a building's windows and facade can be obscured by signs. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway proposed the idea, arguing that advertising gone awry has become an eyesore.”


It seems that in the jaundiced eyes of some, being an “eyesore” is malfeasance enough to trigger a trampling of private property rights—one of the most essential and basic American freedoms. The editorial even admits that in a perfect setting—such as a capitalist, free market democracy like America—this problem should just work itself out:

“Ideally, businesses would regulate themselves, striking a balance between advertising and aesthetics. But they've failed to do so, forcing the city to step in.”

The free-market is not enough, the government has concluded. Therefore, the city council, as the ultimate arbitrator of taste, will now step in and tell store owners how to run their stores and keep them aesthetically pleasing.

In addition to the complaints that the advertising frenzy is an eyesore, the editorial also points out that police have made the argument that the window signs impede their view of the stores’ interiors. With all due respect, perhaps they could try the door? After all, countless other businesses and shops lack windows or adequate store-front interior visibility—yet one doesn’t see government mandating that they punch holes in the wall.

The bottom line is that private property is exactly that—private. The government should have no more right to tell you what to do with your property than they have to tell you what god to worship, for whom to vote, or what to say.

Because the Dallas City Council has not learned this lesson, however, the following question begs asking: What happens when these store owners do not comply with the regulations? Will the state go so far as to condemn the properties as “blighted” via the powers of eminent domain? And what if private residences are deemed an “eyesore”? Will the city council tell Dallas citizens what colors to paint their homes and when to take down their Christmas decorations.

Although the hyper-advertising of these stores may be unattractive to some passersby, the free-market has a way of working these dilemmas out. The Invisible Hand of the marketplace—and not the government—will ultimately direct these storeowners to either improve the appearance of their stores or face being supplanted by their more aesthetically-astute competitors.

Let the marketplace literally mind its own business. The realm of private property is not one through which the government ought to be trespassing.

Full-time Pay for Part-time Work?


How would you like to work only part-time and get full-time benefits?

The Louisiana State Legislature seems to think that’s a pretty good deal—for themselves.

In a narrow 56-44 vote, the Louisiana State House—a part-time legislature—voted to more than double its pay from $16,800 to $37,500 per year.

This differed from a State Senate bill that was approved 20-16 raising pay to $50,700. Fortunately for the people of Louisiana, the Senate will not be able to amend the bill and must vote on the House’s slightly more modest proposal, approving or rejecting it.

This particular legislation has generated uproar from the citizens of Louisiana, many of whom quite logically opposed the bill on the grounds that Louisiana representatives only work part-time

One Louisiana-based citizen advocacy group, the Louisiana Action Council, had a creative way of raking the bill’s original sponsor, Sen. Ann Duplessis (D-New Orleans), over the coals. They took a picture of her shiny new Mercedes Benz and posted it on the Internet with the following caption:

“We do not know the exact percentage of Louisiana drivers who cruise around in a Mercedes Benz, but we are guessing that the percentage of Louisiana workers that have the power to triple their own salary is... little to none.”

Ms. Duplessis, by the way, represents the recently flooded Senate District 2—where most people’s homes likely cost less than her car.

Bayou Buzz had a great call to action for Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican:

“Legislators need to understand that they are public servants and voters are the boss. We are the ones that employ these politicians and those who vote for this pay raise can very well be fired at the next election. To all of the competent and skilled legislators who are considering a vote in favor of this bill, think again. It is the equivalent of a political death sentence.
“For Governor Jindal, it is time to show courage, leadership and get back engaged in what is happening here in Louisiana. It is time to stop the grand political and media tour around the country and stop campaigning for the vice presidential nomination and start paying attention to job #1.
“People are now watching and demanding that our public servants follow the will of the ones in charge, not the politicians, but the people of Louisiana. Finally the roles are reversed and let's hope it stays this way.”

Clearly, Louisianans are outraged. As well they should be. If Louisiana’s lazy lawmakers want full-time pay, perhaps they should go get a full-time job.

ALG Perspective: This is truly an utter outrage for the people of Louisiana, whose economy is in great need. Louisiana’ system was designed as a citizen legislature, not a jobs program for career politicians. Instead of pay increases, perhaps they need tighter term limits. Right now, they get to serve three consecutive four-year terms. Assuming the Senate votes in favor of the House’s version of this bill, then it will be up to Governor Jindal to prove his mettle by vetoing this abomination.

Delaware Restricts Eminent Domain Takings


Gas prices and the thermostat are not the only things soaring these days. In Delaware you might just happen to spot some pigs flying as well.

In a rare move, the Delaware state government made efforts Tuesday to reduce—that’s right—reduce its powers and authority. Bill 245, which aims to prohibit city governments from taking private property unless it is strictly meant for “public use,” passed in the Senate by a 19-1 vote and has now been sent to the House.

No, this is not a joke.

The proposed restrictions on the power known as eminent domain come as a great, but highly welcomed, surprise for those who champion freedom, private property rights, and conservative principles. After all, eminent domain is an often abused power and has steadily evolved into a Big Government monster since its questionable inception in 1791.

Until recently, eminent domain was solely reserved for the most extreme instances of utmost government necessity. Then, in the 2005 case Kelo vs. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could transfer property from one private owner to another as an outright money-making ploy—for the politicians and their supporters.

This ploy, however, may no longer be feasible under Bill 245.

In an article published in the Delaware News Journal, the precise and narrowly defined nature of the bill is articulated:

“The bill whittles the definition of "public use" to specify that the property must remain in public possession, to be used to construct schools, roads or government buildings, for example. It also pares down what qualifies as blighted or slum properties by mandating that they must constitute a danger to public health...The bill also specifically prohibits eminent domain from being used to take property for economic redevelopment.”

The legislation is not without its opponents, which, obviously enough, are members of the government. Those fighting against Bill 242 include Wilmington Mayor James M. Baker, members of the Delaware League of Local Governments, and the one dissenting state Senator.

The main thrust of their argument revolves around the notion that Delaware’s cities and towns would suffer. Mayor Baker was quoted as saying:

"It would hamper the whole city – period…Our development, the protection of our citizens and neighborhoods from unsafe buildings that are about to fall apart, would literally come to a screeching halt."

The Wilmington Mayor, however, conveniently disregards the aforementioned fact that the bill carries a provision placing “blighted or slum” properties constituting a “danger to public health” within the realm of the government’s eminent domain powers.

Another argument waged against Bill 245 is that if enacted, government-acquired land deemed unusable would be prohibited from being sold by the government. The question one must ask in response is why did the government acquire unusable land in the first place? If anything, this legislation would force the government to take a good, hard look at its eminent domain habits and only take lands strictly needed for “public use” and “public use” alone. After all, this was eminent domain’s original purpose and the fact that the government could find itself in possession of unusable lands in the first place is an outrage.

Although the fate of the legislation is still hanging in the balance, its passing would constitute a significant victory for the cause of limited government. In a day and age when government seizes upon every opportunity to inflate itself and extend its reach, it is reassuring to know that there are still some in leadership who value private property rights and basic American freedoms.

ALG Perspective: The Delaware Legislature is to be respected for the steps it has taken to cut back on eminent domain powers and restore authority to the people of Delaware. We sincerely hope other states still exercising liberal eminent domain policies will follow suit and limit the authoritarian practice propagated by the Kelo decision. At the same time, states must also bear in mind that simply limiting eminent domain does not quite go far enough. Just compensation based on market prices must also be given to those from whom the government takes property.

We urge Delaware residents to contact their representatives and voice their support for Bill 245. More information can be found at:
http://legis.delaware.gov/legislature.nsf/Reps?openview&Count=75&nav=house
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT