Residents united against court ruling

RICHARD POWELSON
KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL
JULY 17, 2005         

The U.S. Supreme Court picked the wrong fight when it decided to expand government power to condemn private property.

The entire Tennessee congressional delegation is opposed to the June 23 ruling and is exploring legislation to restrict the scope of the court's decision. The court now seems to allow government taking of private property for economic development by another private party when that could boost government revenues.

Earlier, taking of private property had to be for public use, such as a road.

U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a Knoxville Republican, was worried and outspoken about government acquisition of too much land long before the Supreme Court decision. He has been talking about it for years.

He has said the government acquired too much land for parks and now cannot afford the maintenance needed.

He notes that housing prices in many areas already are very high and rising. If the government - local, state or federal - keeps acquiring more private land for public interests, Duncan warns, house lots of the future will become smaller and smaller, and more young families will be forced to live in apartment complexes or among rows of townhouses.

One of his speeches before the June court decision called those in government who condemn private land pirates.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court ruling has stirred up many Americans. Private property concerns have risen to a handful of top priorities, he said. The idea of the government taking their land simply for economic development is very offensive to them, he said.

Also, U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Democrat, lives on farmland near Pall Mall, Tenn. He said the court decision sets a dangerous precedent where government could take land from those with low and moderate incomes and give it to wealthy developers who would improve the land, boosting the tax revenues going to government.

All nine U.S. House members from Tennessee voted June 30 for a nonbinding resolution blasting the Supreme Court decision. The resolution noted the members' grave disapproval. It passed 365-33.

At least four of the Tennessee House members are signed supporters of a bill, H.R. 3135, to bar taking of private land for an economic development reason where federal dollars are connected in any way to the condemnation.

So far the House bill has nearly 100 House supporters.

Both of the state's senators, Frist and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., have taken stands against the court ruling. A Senate bill, S. 1313, would restrict the government use of eminent domain to public use needs. In other words, if the government needs private land in the path of a new highway or road extension, for example, that is for a public use.

But the government could not, under the Senate bill, take private land and give it or sell it to a private person or company engaged in development that could help the government's future tax revenues.

Frist said he will study the Senate bill by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and any other Senate bills that surface and decide which one gets debate and a vote on the Senate floor.

Alexander added his name to supporters of the Cornyn bill.

Duncan warns that the government already owns too much land. He cites statistics that the federal government owns about 30 percent of U.S. land and that another 20 percent is held by state or local governments or quasi-government agencies.

He repeated an interesting portion of the Supreme Court members' dissent in the recent court case. Justice Clarence Thomas complained that, under the new interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court was saying: "Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not."