Curb Eminent Domain Power

Why do public opinion polls consistently show that citizens revere our Founding Fathers but deeply distrust modern-day politicians?  The answer is simple.  The Founding Fathers risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to break free from the shackles of the British aristocracy to create a new form of republican government with limited powers.  They knew from their in-depth study of human nature and history that inevitably, as Lord Acton said, "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  In contrast, too many of our modern-day politicians have arrogated each year, through new laws and regulations, more power from hard-working citizens so that they can do favors for powerful financial and political interest groups, gain campaign contributions in return and thereby rise in elected office.  This is the new aristocracy.  By putting the insatiable pursuit of money and power ahead of justice and community values, too many of our modern-day politicians have forfeited the public trust.

A prime example of this problem is California law on the use of eminent domain power by local governments.  Last summer, as a member of the Auburn City Council, I worked with my four colleagues to write a new eminent domain ordinance for our city, as required by the expansion of our redevelopment area.  To justify the expansion of our redevelopment area, the city's consultants toured the proposed redevelopment area and identified in a report numerous properties that met the broad state definition of "blight." The consultants followed state law to the letter and even labeled a greenhouse, that needed only minor repairs, at "Eisleys," a popular nursery in town, as evidence of "blight." 

Following the publication of the "blight report," many Auburn residents became worried that the city, in the pursuit of additional sales tax dollars, would write a new eminent domain ordinance that would allow this power to be threatened or used to take a "blighted" property from a small business owner and transfer it to a big developer and call it a "public purpose."  Auburn residents of every ideological persuasion - liberals, conservatives and libertarians - wanted us to improve the economic development of our city through cooperation rather than coercion.  On August 13th, following the lead of several cities and counties in the state, the Auburn City Council enacted a reform ordinance that prohibits a future city council from using eminent domain power to take and transfer private property from one property owner to another.  This was a great victory for justice and community values.

But actions by individual cities and counties won't solve what has become a statewide problem.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court unwisely blessed the use of eminent domain by local governments to pick "winners and losers" in the awful 5-4 Kelo decision in 2005, 42 states have passed restrictions on this corrupting practice.  The California Legislature has been AWOL in passing reform legislation. We need to be absolutely clear that no local government should be tempted, in the insatiable pursuit of sales tax dollars, to disrupt the lives of small property owners at the behest of big developers and big campaign contributors.  I'm voting "yes" on Proposition 98 to end this corrupting practice and help rebuild the public trust in government.  The measure also has the added benefit of gradually phasing out the destructive practice of rent control, which creates slum housing and fewer rental opportunities.

I'm voting "no" on Proposition 99 because it is a dishonest attempt by politicians and the new aristocracy to maintain their power to use eminent domain to take the property of business owners, churches and farmers and ultimately transfer it to big developers and big campaign contributors.  We should instead promote economic development through cooperation rather than coercion.

Kevin Hanley has served on the Auburn City Council since 2002.  Kevin can be contacted at hanleykh@jps.net.