It seems that the various city and county governments around the country have shot themselves in the foot. After Kelo vs. New London, there was a gleeful rush to condemn coveted private property so it could be taken for redevelopment. As a result, citizens all over the nation are contacting their state representatives.

Is time running out for those who abuse eminent domain?

"With no power, of which they are possessed, do [legislatures] seem to be less familiar, or to handle less awkwardly, than that of eminent domain. . . . At times they fail, or seem to fail, to distinguish accurately between public and private ends, and if their terms and language be alone consulted, to pervert the power to uses to which it cannot lawfully be applied."
— Sherman v. Buick
(California Supreme Court, 1867)

It now appears that the use of eminent domain for private development may eventually be curtailed or even prohibited in many states. This of course has caused some municipalities to work even faster as they try to get projects started while they can still legally do so. And that of course has simply added fuel to the fire to stop the abuse of eminent domain.

Public outrage over this issue is reaching the boiling point. All across America citizens are forming grassroots organizations to protect their properties and to force state lawmakers to take action.

It’s working. State legislators from California to Connecticut are introducing bills to block the use of eminent domain for taking property not slated for government use. It’s also a joy to see lawmakers who are normally political adversaries working together. Liberals and conservatives alike are banding together to craft legislation to protect the property rights of their constituents.

In California, state Senators Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) and state Sen. Dean Florez, (D-Shafter), have introduced a bill to prevent public agencies from taking land from one private owner and giving it to another for development purposes.

Also in California, conservative U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, (R-Tracy), is working with liberal representatives Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), and John Conyers of Michigan to deny federal funds to cities that use eminent domain for private development.

In Washington, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), has introduced legislation prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes if federal funds are used.

In June, a Republican-sponsored bill to limit eminent domain abuse in Connecticut was defeated, mostly along party lines, by Democrat majorities in the state House and Senate. Republicans have promised to call for a special session to force another vote.

Colorado Governor Bill Owens has pledged to work with state legislators to create and / or change eminent domain laws to better protect property owners. There is an existing bill in the Colorado State House, but Owens feels it’s too broad to provide adequate access for the building of privately-owned toll roads in that state. Work on a new bill is ongoing.

In my humble opinion, the most important facets of this issue are the definitions of “blight” and “public use.” A couple of years ago, the mayor of Lakewood, Ohio managed to get an older, well-kept neighborhood inhabited mostly by senior citizens condemned due to blight. It’s interesting to note however, that the mayor’s own home, which of course is not in that neighborhood, would also have been deemed blighted under the parameters he set for this neighborhood. A strict definition of blight must therefore be created at the federal level to prevent city officials from defining and redefining blight just to suit their needs of the moment.

And “Public Use” must be defined separately from “Public Benefit.” Public Use in the past has been defined as roads, courthouses, post offices, and other government-owned facilities that are generally considered open to the public. But, while a mall or strip center is indeed open to the public, it is not a government-owned facility. There lies the difference. By allowing city officials to use eminent domain to transfer ownership of land from one private entity to another, the possibility for corruption is unlimited.

In the short term, the result of this rat race will ultimately be that more people lose their properties as city governments rush to beat real and imagined deadlines. In the long term however, we may see the property rights of private citizens finally protected from avaricious developers and the corrupt city officials whom they control. The groundswell of support for eminent domain reform across the nation is a wonderful example of what ordinary Americans can do when we stick together. The game is far from over, but it appears that the home team is winning.