>But even you said that having state laws strip local governments of power
>over eminent domain was not the policy you favored. What you refuse to
>hear is that I agree that abuses to eminent domain and have REPEATEDLY
>listed alternative policy goals that would rein in eminent domain abuses by
>corporations, yet you keep ignoring that the policy being debated is state
>governments stripping local governments of power.
One of the awful things about life in Washington is that political discussions always devolve into having to take a position on some goddamned bill or other. No principle, no broad strategy - just where do you stand on HR 1683, or some such. That's why I try to minimize my contact with Washington. And now you're telling me I've got to organize my politics around 30 goddamned bills in 30 goddamned state legislatures.
I've told you what my principle is: eminent domain should be very narrowly defined for broad public benefit.
As it turns out, this is pretty much what the Institute for Justice's model law says <http://castlecoalition.org/legislation/model/state_statute.html>:
>Requiring that Eminent Domain Be for Public Use and Defining Public Use
>Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this State nor
>any political subdivision thereof nor any other condemning entity
>shall use eminent domain unless it is necessary for a public use.
>Whenever property is condemned and will be used by a private party,
>the condemnor must establish by clear and convincing evidence that
>the use of eminent domain complies with this section and is
>reasonably necessary.
>Public use: The term "public use" shall only mean (1) the
>possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the general
>public, or by public agencies; (2) the use of land for the creation
>or functioning of public utilities or common carriers*; or (3) where
>the use of eminent domain (a)(i) removes a public nuisance; (ii)
>removes a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human
>habitation or use; or (iii) is used to acquire abandoned property
>and (b) eliminates a direct threat to public health or safety
>caused by the property in its current condition**. The public
>benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base,
>tax revenues, employment, general economic health, shall not
>constitute a public use.
Much of the actual legislation under consideration uses very similar language, so your characterization of it seems a bit tendentious. If they're "stripping local governments of power," they're stipping them of powers they shouldn't have.
Doug