Dem. and Repub. Parties Both Morphing, Growing Closer: Alternatives?

[MMMMMM]

This is a quickly thrown together post. Sorry it is not better outlined, nor more complete, and that it doesn't come with links.

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties today are effectively for bigger government, more centralized control, more spending, and there seems increasingly little to choose between them (although choosing between two specific candidates is somewhat more of a choice).

Both Democratic and Republican parties seem to have largely cast aside the idea that individual rights are what the concept of "rights" is based upon in the first place! This is a dangerous trend. If we support the continued erosion of individual rights it will be at our own peril, and even more so the peril of succeeding generations.

Besides the controversies surrounding the Patriot Act and loss of rights, there has been an ongoing trend for decades now: police powers to seize cash and cars, and even homes, with burden of proof on the owner that it was not obtained through "drug money"--and perhaps more insidiously, in or around 1990 the Supreme Court made some ruling affecting private property rights:

All across this nation, corporations have been, with the aid of local governments, taking by eminent domain what they could not or would not acquire privately and legitimately. The concept of "eminent domain" was expanded or interpreted through the 1990(?) ruling to include greater potential for property taxes. What this has resulted in, is corporations like Wal-Mart (and others) getting city councils to take private property--such as your house--because they know the strip mall or the Wal-Mart will pay higher property taxes on that land after they develop it. To them, that constitutes a legitimate application of the concept of "eminent domain." And all they have to pay you is what some assessor deems is the "fair market value" for your house.

This is a far cry from the original concept of eminent domain, which applied to such needed uses as railroads, hospitals, schools, etc. Now all that is necessary is that some developer show that he will increase the local tax revenue by developing your property, and poof--you could be out of your home at the whim of the city council, with no recourse, and with no negotiating power. This has actually happened in numerous locations across the country, although it isn't going over well everywhere.

Anyway, individual rights and property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without those rights, you really can't have a free society. The Democratic and Republican parties don't seem to care about these much anymore, so maybe it's time to consider alternatives--especially if your vote this time is not in a "swing" state.

If you are against increased centralized planning and expansion of federal powers, if you are against increased spending, if you are against increased erosion of individual rights, if you are against corporate usurpation of private property rights through "eminent domain"----then I suggest you consider voting Libertarian, especially if you are in a state where the outcome for Kerry or Bush is practically assured anyway. If, shortly before elections, polls show that in Connecticut Kerry has a huge lead and is essentially unbeatable (as will probably be the case), then I am voting Libertarian.

Also, if you hold strong convictions about any other matter, or about any other candidate or party, but aren't voting for them because the race is anticipated to be close--take a look just before elections and see if your state is a swing state or not. If it is not, then there is little reason to not vote for your own personal preference from all candidates.

I think the Dem and Repub parties are getting closer together in terms of actual impact, and that neither one truly treasures the values of individual rights they way those values were treasured in the past. It seems the two-party system is so entrenched it may never change, but giving support to the party of your conscience is the only way that party will ever grow and possibly become a contender someday. Just some things to consider.

[MMMMMM]

Exposing eminent domain abuses
Jacob Sullum (archive)

April 25, 2003

Imagine you're an affluent Iraqi living in a ritzy neighborhood of Baghdad before the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. One of Saddam's friends stops by your house for a visit. "Nice place you have here," he says.

The compliment worries you. You know Saddam could, if the whim struck him, take your home and give it to his friend. If he were in a particularly magnanimous mood, he might pay you for the property, but it would be an offer you couldn't refuse.

Anyone who thinks that sort of thing happens only in Third World dictatorships will be shocked by a new report from the Institute for Justice. In "Public Power, Private Gain," the Washington-based public interest law firm reveals that during the last five years, state and local governments in the U.S. have threatened to take more than 10,000 pieces of property and give them to well-connected developers.

Such transfers violate state and federal constitutional provisions that limit the power of eminent domain to situations involving a "public use," such as a courthouse or a highway. They have nevertheless been upheld by state and federal courts, and they may be much more common than the report suggests, since there is no systematic record of condemnations for private use.

"Cities love eminent domain because they can offer other people's property to lure or reward favored developers," explains the report's author, Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner. "Developers love eminent domain because they don't have to negotiate for property. In the end, developers get the land and property owners get the boot."

Here are a few of the many examples Berliner catalogs:

In Mesa, Ariz., the owners of an Ace Hardware franchise got the city to condemn Bailey's Brake Service, a small business in operation since 1970, so they could gut it and build a new, bigger store.

The City Council of Imperial Beach, Calif., condemned a Mexican restaurant and gave the land to the Sterling Development Corp., which replaced the long-established eatery with a Sav-On Drug store.

To accommodate the developer of an industrial park, the city of Bristol, Conn., is evicting four elderly siblings from a home in which they've lived for 60 years.

With help from a state redevelopment agency, Donald Trump tried to throw an elderly widow out of her Atlantic City home to make room for expansion of his casino. (She successfully challenged the plan in state court, where she was represented by the Institute for Justice.)

The common thread running through such cases is an astonishingly arrogant assumption by government planners that they know the best use for someone else's property. They decide a big business is better than a small one, a parking lot is better than a house, a retailer is better than a church, or fancy condominiums are better than middle-class homes.

The U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to such arbitrary exercises of power by declaring that condemning land and turning it over to private parties can meet the "public use" test if the aim is to eliminate "blight." It turns out blight is in the eye of the beholder; in practice, it can mean just about any property use a politician or bureaucrat doesn't like.

City officials commonly argue that forcibly transferring property from one person to another is justified because it will increase tax revenue and employment, thereby serving a public purpose. But as Berliner notes, this argument proves too much.

"If the promise of greater jobs or profits is enough to take someone's property," she writes, "then almost no one is safe. Practically any home in the United States would generate more tax dollars as a Costco. Small businesses provide fewer jobs than an industrial park. And houses of worship produce no tax dollars and few jobs. The implications of the jobs/taxes mantra is that everyone's home, everyone's business is up for grabs."

Striking an optimistic note, the Institute for Justice suggests "the tide is turning" against eminent domain abuse. In cases heard by courts, property owners prevail around 40 percent of the time; local activists have defeated 20 or so redevelopment projects; and state legislators have passed six bills aimed at protecting people threatened by condemnation.

I'm not sure this constitutes a turning tide. But if it does, much of the credit goes to the Institute for Justice, which tirelessly defends the private domain that distinguishes our country from places like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/js20030425.shtml

[HDPM]

One of the most frustrating things I have ever done is serve on a local planning and zoning commission. Mind you, I live in a state that is pretty conservative and there is more than average respect for property rights. I was sick at how quickly the local "conservatives" would jump at the chance to tell others how to use their property. We weren't condemning stuff to give to developers or anything, but the daily attitude toward freedom and rights was atrocious. At one hilarious meeting I got enough commissioners swayed to my way of thinking that I got an innocuous sign for a business approved. There was no way the sign should have been banned in the first place, but banned it was. Not after the meeting tho. So the bureaucrats went nuts about it. I got yelled at after the hearing and stuff. It was funny and I think they went to city council to reinstate the ban or something. I don't know. One factor that commissioners would consider is how "uppity" the zoning applicants were. If you came in and licked the boots of the administrators and commissioners you were treated better. If you came in and asserted your property rights you were a threat. The chairman of the commission at one point even said he wanted to see a little humility from an applicant. It was gross. Having the slightest bit of political power intoxicated these people and they wanted to exercise their shred of power to the greatest degree possible in order to serve their psychological desires. Feh.

[MMMMMM]

Agreed.

There was fairly recently some report on a mayor(?) in Florida calling the locals "greedy" because they wanted to keep living in their own homes by the waterfront instead of that land being redeveloped commercially. He went so far as to say he would push for legal action to force it through his way--which he called "the people's way" or some such garbage. He said the rights of "the people" to have more jobs should trump the rights of a community to continue living in their own homes. Don't know how this has turned out yet. What a piece of work. The scary thing is I think he was head of the City Council or something like that and that he had the largest individual say in the matter. Also it wasn't even like it was an exclusive subdivision or something if I recall--it was just some folks who were wise or fortunate enough to buy those homes years ago and who chose live in them. To him, that was "being greedy", because the rest of the town didn't live on the waterfront and because the waterfront folks didn't want to give up their homes to make way for a Costco or whatever, which would provide more jobs.

As someone once said, politicians never accuse you of being greedy for wanting to take other people's money or property--only for wanting to keep your own. Scary and nearly unbelievable, but all too true.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I have little to contribute to the conversation, but I just wanted to say interesting post MMMMMM, especially this: [ QUOTE ]
then I suggest you consider voting Libertarian, especially if you are in a state where the outcome for Kerry or Bush is practically assured anyway. If, shortly before elections, polls show that in Connecticut Kerry has a huge lead and is essentially unbeatable (as will probably be the case), then I am voting Libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]