Legislators should restrict eminent domain

EDITORIAL STAFF
KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL
JULY 24, 2005

The fallout from the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain is pretty loud, and in all that clatter, we can't say we have heard a voice - at least not locally - taking the position that it's OK for a government to take your home for a higher tax return.

We're pleased to see that our elected officials - at the local, state and national levels - are talking about passing laws that would limit the new power handed to local governments by the high court ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month in a 5-4 decision that local government could seize land for economic development if it is shown that development benefits the community as a whole. Prior to that decision - Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., - governments could use eminent domain only for public uses in blighted areas.

On the local front, three county commissioners are suggesting that a two-thirds vote of the 19-member Knox County Commission be required to exercise eminent domain for private economic development. A simple majority is required now.

We applaud Commissioners Mark Cawood, Paul Pinkston and Mike McMillan for taking the step to sponsor the ordinance. Knox County Law Director Mike Moyers said he's preparing an ordinance "that would limit a situation where the intent and effect is the transferring of private property to another private owner."

Cawood said, "The decision opens up the door for a lot of things to be condemned. I think it's a property rights issue."

Other Tennessee counties also are taking up the issue, and the McMinn County Commission has voted to limit the county's right to forcibly seize property for commercial development but retained its right to take land for public projects.

At the national level, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he expects the Senate to approve restrictions to government power to condemn private property. Such legislation will "reassure the American people that their property is truly their property and cannot be taken away," Frist said.

U.S. Reps. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, and Lincoln Davis, D-Pall Mall, also have criticized the court decision. Duncan has spoken on the House floor twice to warn of national problems if Congress does not amend the ruling, and Davis has said that private property ownership is a core freedom in this country.

A number of state legislators also are talking about taking action in various ways to combat the impact of the Supreme Court decision. Most of the proposed state legislation is aimed at declaring what is and is not a valid public purpose where a city, county or state government can take property.

In Tennessee, the General Assembly basically has all authority over eminent domain with any powers exercised by state government and local governments dependent on legislation.

In Knox County, there have been few eminent domain cases, and most of those have been for new roads or expansion of existing roads, Moyers said. Two exceptions are the condemnation of 24 parcels on State Street when the county was considering a new justice center and the property for the Knox County Regional Farmers' Market 15 years ago.

"It's not like we are out there running around condemning private property for developers. I never see us doing that," Moyers said.

And that's exactly what the legislation at local, state and national fronts is intended to ensure.

Is your home still your castle? We hope our elected officials will make sure of it.