|
STATEMENT
OF LARRY HELMINIAK
We know that people
try to come to America from all over the world, often risking their
lives to get here. They do so because we have a set of guaranteed property
rights and closely connected personal liberties that are and have been
the envy of the world for more than two centuries. One of the most
important of these rights is part of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S.
Constitution, which says, very simply, nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation. Notice that it
took only 12 words for the founders to get their point across. The amendment mentions
nothing of exceptions to take your private property if neighbors don't
like it, or if politicians, who are temporarily in charge, want to kick
you out so that someone else will take if over and possibly pay more
taxes. It says that it
can only be taken for PUBLIC USE and the owner must get just compensation. Until recently,
we understood PUBLIC USE as the government needing the property for
a road, a bridge, a government building, or a school. But now some states,
notably California and Maryland, have "grown" the definition
to include condemning the property so that some other private individual
can use it for a purpose that pays more taxes or that otherwise meshes
with the schemes of local planners. We saw this in
Middle River a couple of years ago when people were almost kicked out
of their homes for a private shopping center. Last Friday night,
on Dateline, we saw 89-year-old couples who had lived in their homes
in Long Branch, New Jersey for over 40 years, but now were going to
lose them on some invented pretext. The real reason is that the ocean
is a hundred yards away, and the city and developers want to build condominiums
there so that the city could collect more taxes. Many lament the
Supreme Court ruling in Kelo, and rightly criticize its failure strictly
to interpret the Constitution. Others, however, see an upside to the
otherwise regrettable Kelo ruling: if, two years ago, you complained
to someone about the county wanting to kick you out of your own house
so that some local special interest close to local officials could have
it, you would have gotten little attention. But, because of Kelo, the
entire country, including (at least nationally) strong voices from both
parties, is looking at the abuse of eminent domain and moving to restore
traditional property rights. Let me draw the
Committee's attention to H. R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection
Act of 2005 which passed the U. S. House of Representatives by a vote
of 376-78 last November 3, and now awaits Senate action. H.R. 4128 would
curtail eminent-domain abuse by the states (and stop it by the Federal
government). The House bill reads:
"The term
`economic development' means taking private property, without the consent
of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private
person or entity to another private person or entity for commercial
enterprise carried on for profit, or to increase tax revenue, tax base,
employment, or general economic health . . . ." All members of
the Maryland House delegation except one voted for this measure. Representatives
John Conyers and Maxine Waters were co-sponsors of chairman James Sensenbrenner's
bill. I have seen abuse
close up in Carroll County. For years there were buildings at an intersection
that were, by anyone's opinion, ugly. When Congressman Roscoe Bartlett
was asked about what could be done, he said that he agrees: "They
are ugly. But is ugly against the law?" Suppose people
think that YOUR house is ugly. Do you want them to have the right to
tear it down because of their opinion? The free market generally provides
non-coercive incentives for this kind of civic improvement. A year later I
was at a meeting of the South Carroll Business Association, and a speaker
told us that the local interests had convinced the city fathers of Westminster
to create a new county code that was specifically designed to put this
property out of compliance. 50 people heard him say it. Now the buildings
are down. But what kind of dangerous precedent have these officials
set in motion? For this reason,
I would ask the members of this committee to consider whether HB1410
should define "blight," and as carefully as possible. Experts
tell me that there has been much abuse of the definition of "blight"
for the convenience and profitability of special interests.
Should the General
Assembly of Maryland be less careful of the ordinary citizen's traditional
property rights than BB&T? Only by doing so
will Maryland have a clear road map on the appropriate use of eminent
domain. Maryland should not improperly employ this powerful tool of
government to take the property of the ordinary homeowner, or the independent
business owner, or the local house of worship. Thank You. |
