Alright, I admit, I have a very simple understanding of eminent domain. What I do know, however, makes it sound like one the most tyrannical practices embedded in our constitution.
Here in the Tulsa area, a Baptist Church on the verge of loosing their building to eminent domain, has garnered considerable attention from both the national and local media. This morning, it was the front page story above the fold in the NYT domestic section. Just as a side note, its the second story in the past year that this tiny little industrial suburb of Sand Springs has attracted national coverage. The other story goes back to earlier in 05 when Fred Phelps barged into town (sigh) in reaction to an excellent series by the Washington Post on growing up gay in rural America, which focused on a Sand Springs teenager. So if you think Sand Springs Oklahoma sounds familiar, its because you've probably heard about it before somewhere.
Anyways.. back to eminent domain:
The Centennial Baptist Church is a typical African American Baptist Church. Back after the notorious Tulsa Race, the most fatal race riot in American history, many blacks fled to Sand Springs where they were welcomed by philanthropist Charles Page. Although today the town is mostly white, a community of African Americans surrvives around the downtown area, which is where the church is currently located.
Only three years ago, the church embarked on a $90,000 rennovation which is a lot for a church of only fifty regular attendants. Now, as part of the inane vision 2025 devleopment plan for Tulsa county, the city has threatened to use eminant domain to seize the church's property so they can build a MINIMALL!!! Like we need any more of those out here in spread out suburban Tulsa! As Roosevelt Gildon, the Pastor of Centennial Baptist eloquently said, "The Lord didn't send me here to build a minimall."
Who would ever think that in the buckle of the Bible Belt, our elected officals (I think Sand Springs is controlled by Republicans but I'm not sure) would be trying to shut down a church in favor of helping some wealthy local businessmen. How Christian of us...
And yes, what Sand Springs is trying to do is tantammount to seizure of property. Although our constitution requires eminent domain cases to provide "just compensation," Reverend Gildon contests that the compensation would fall several thousand dollars short of allowing them to restart (I don't know the exact figures). I can maybe understand eminent domain if a city absolutely has to expand transportation, and plans to build a road through a neighborhood or something, as long as they provide just compensation. I no case, however, do I support a city abusing eminent domain to seize a particular area for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenue.
I just don't understand how eminent domain abuse has become a "conservative issue" if you know what I mean. Hannity and Colmes, which had a story on centennial Baptist tonight, has been going on a crusade with this issue since some altercation in Florida. If you do a google search of eminent domain or related issues, you get all sorts of crap from hard right websites like World Net Daily, for example.
I'm a Democrat because I believe in putting the little guy, first and foremost. In almost all instances of eminent domain, it seems like the little guy is the landowner, left at the mercy of compassionate conservatism who masquerade as their ally through their "property rights rhetoric." Are Democrats actually doing something about eminent domain. Is my interpretation of the issue way off base? Please tell me, I'd love to know.
End of first diary. Hoooorah.