His column today synthesizes a huge 800 pound-gorilla problem – eminent domain, or the taking of private property by government whether the owner likes it or not. It seems that the dusting off dated writing (the U.S. Constitution) does not have the brilliant ring of clarity of 200 years ago.

Then, history told of the seizing of private property by whim of the Crown but they also understood it might sometimes be important to take private property for public uses. And not the broad interpretation of “public use” to include shopping centers, housing developments, etc. all for private gain but for use by the “public”.

The Kelo decision by the Supreme Court actually said it was okay for the city of New London, Conn.
to acquire by eminent domain private property for private use. Since then, at least 28 states have taken up the subject of eminent domain to halt just that kind of taking.

The California initiatives mentioned by Walters somewhat tackle the issue but leave open questions. The cities, of course, want to be the shill for developers so they will receive more tax dollars. Easy money at both ends at the expense of private property owners who do not want to sell.

To muddy the waters even more, the federal government with its edict known as Executive Order 13406 prohibits a federal agency from acquiring private property and converting it to private use. It seems that the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency, for years was buying, selling, and swapping land for their own profit. EO 13406 stopped that cold.

Cities, states, and counties probably cannot count on as much federal largess after issuance of that order.

His column today synthesizes a huge 800 pound-gorilla problem – eminent domain, or the taking of private property by government whether the owner likes it or not. It seems that the dusting off dated writing (the U.S. Constitution) does not have the brilliant ring of clarity of 200 years ago.

Then, history told of the seizing of private property by whim of the Crown but they also understood it might sometimes be important to take private property for public uses. And not the broad interpretation of “public use” to include shopping centers, housing developments, etc. all for private gain but for use by the “public”.

The Kelo decision by the Supreme Court actually said it was okay for the city of New London, Conn.
to acquire by eminent domain private property for private use. Since then, at least 28 states have taken up the subject of eminent domain to halt just that kind of taking.

The California initiatives mentioned by Walters somewhat tackle the issue but leave open questions. The cities, of course, want to be the shill for developers so they will receive more tax dollars. Easy money at both ends at the expense of private property owners who do not want to sell.

To muddy the waters even more, the federal government with its edict known as Executive Order 13406 prohibits a federal agency from acquiring private property and converting it to private use. It seems that the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency, for years was buying, selling, and swapping land for their own profit. EO 13406 stopped that cold.

Cities, states, and counties probably cannot count on as much federal largess after issuance of that order.