This is a diary about eminent domain abuse. Before we get to that, however, it's worth discussing why stopping such abuse is a progressive value. A million years ago, as we all know, conservatism stood for small government. The Bush administration has shown that today conservatism stands for massive budget deficits, huge corporate giveaway programs (the Medicare bill), imperialism overseas, and government intrusion into our day-to-day affairs.
With small government dead and buried as a Republican value, it has fallen to the progressive movement to redesign government as a protector, rather than an attacker of its people. Government protects its people when it has sensible homeland security, a social safety net for the sick and elderly, and punishment for those corporations and individuals who destroy or pollute our environment. A government attacks its people when it intrudes unnecessarily into their private affairs, acts dishonorably in international affairs or unnecessarily takes private property. You heard right, protection of property is a progressive value, assuming the property isn't being used to destroy our environment. It's exactly the same value that has us protest when the government spies illegally upon its own people or denies rights to a particular group. It's a value dear to our founding fathers, the right to pursue happiness without undue government interference.
Back in 2006, we have the issue of eminent domain abuse--The seizure of private property for redevelopment. The Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision legalized redevelopment seizures, saying that the matter was an issue for local government. The original reason for allowing eminent domain seizures is rarely controversial--Taking land for a road or school or some other public needs project. However, the vast majority of eminent domain seizures today are for redevelopment. In New Jersey, where I live, preservation of the little remaining open space has left little room for development, hence redevelopment of existing developed areas. There is no question that some sort of redevelopment must and will take place over time--Exactly the same buildings aren't going to stand in the same places forever. The issue is what sort of redevelopment will take place, and whether it will involve involuntary seizures.
The reason most eminent domain seizures for redevelopment can be called abuse comes down to the definition of the word "blighted." Most municipalities have statutes where a property must be blighted before it can be seized. What usually pops into most people's minds when they think "blighted" is a decaying or abandoned property. However, most municipal officials have taken the view that "blighted" means anything that isn't pulling in the maximum amount of tax revenue. Anything from a baseball field to a shopping center to an orange grove to my beautiful middle-class home could be designated as blighted if a Wal-Mart on the same property could bring in more property tax dollars. The vast majority of eminent domain seizures in New Jersey are of just that nature--Perfectly acceptable middle class homes that have the misfortune to be located where a municipality and its politically connected developer friends see that more money could be made.
The biggest problem with redevelopment as it is being conducted today, aside from the eminent domain seizures, is that the only public good that is being considered is how many tax dollars a property can produce. For instance, badly needed low income housing is almost never a reason for redevelopment, since it won't bring in big property taxes. New Jersey municipalities are ravenous for tax dollars. Property taxes are driving many people out of the state. Improved ratables (higher tax income on a given property) seems like the easy answer. Unfortunately, not only does it lead to inhumane eminent domain seizures, but it doesn't really work. Often, the new construction doesn't deliver nearly as many tax dollars as the developer promises, or it costs the municipality or state more money to redevelop the property than it brings in via new revenue. And even if it does work, it's often a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Your Wal-Mart brings in more revenue on that property, but it does so by siphoning off dollars from other nearby properties or neighboring towns. Then the neighboring town sees its taxes going down and it decides to do some redevelopment of its own. It's a vicious cycle inside of a zero sum game. The definitive proof of the failure of redevelopment to bring in more tax dollars is that redevelopment has skyrocketed in New Jersey over the last several years, and property taxes have skyrocketed at the same time.
Another reason redevelopment has failed is the corruption. Almost all municipalities are tied to the developers that are the major source of campaign contributions in the state. A corrupt bureaucracy is created--The municipality creates a redevelopment board, which is staffed by either the council members of the municipality itself, or their cronies or developer friends. Many of the redevelopment agencies that have thus sprung up across the country are accountable to no one, and yet they can take public money for their projects. Remember the part about preventing government abuse of its people? This is it. Redevelopment agencies are usually not benevolent. They're often fronts for corrupt corporations (developers) to feed at the public trough--The Bush administration at the local level.
Unfortunately, in many cases, progressives have conceded the high moral ground to conservatives on the eminent domain issue. Democrats in New Jersey are at least as guilty of eminent domain abuse as Republicans. In Long Branch, the town where the largest number of middle class homes in New Jersey has been seized, the Democratic mayor was just re-elected. Interestingly, with 52% of the vote, and outspending his opponent 10-1, he claimed a public mandate for his policies. Again, it's all very Bushlike!
The issue is a winner for progressives on every level--Politically, the vast majority of people are against it, morally it's wrong, and pragmatically, it just doesn't work. Fight it everywhere and anywhere you can.