Friday, May 7, 2010
Can the political process protect property owners from the use of eminent domain? Consider this story from Fox News:
Officials in Auburn, New York threatened to possibly use eminent domain to force property owners to sell their land so a developer could build a multi-million dollar hotel and conference center. But in a surprise vote, the Auburn Industrial Development Agency unanimously voted not to use eminent domain by a vote of 9 to 0.
As negotiations continued with three property owners over the past several months, it appeared that Auburn would have to resort to eminent domain to clear the way for the proposed 88 room, $11 million hotel and conference center. City officials said the hotel would bring jobs, new tax revenue, and improve the city, which is located in upstate New York, as it plans to launch a music festival in two years.
There was at least one hold out, Mike Kazanivsky, who owns a barren grass strewn lot that he says he bought to build a small miniature golf and ice cream amusement park. When we stood on his property two weeks ago, he wept at the thought that he could be forced to sell his land for a private project. . . .
He insists he does not want to sell his plot of land.
“Everyone kept saying you have to put a figure on it, you have to put a figure on it. How do you put a figure on something you don’t want to sell?”
He insisted “I never wanted to stop progress, but I didn’t want them to take this from me.” . . .
So, to recap, the city proposes taking property through eminent domain, then backs off after the issue becomes controversial. So, in at least one case, the political process did protect the property owner. But the plural of anecdote is not data - the political process worked in this case, but might not in others.
(H/T Erika Lauer)
[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]