Does restricting “eminent domain”—the power of government to seize private property—harm economic growth? A new report from the Institute for Justice looks at the evidence and concludes the answer is no.
Since the Supreme Court sanctified eminent domain on behalf of private developers in the dreadful 5–4 Kelo ruling in 2005, 42 states have passed some restriction on the practice. Some reforms have been far-reaching, as in Florida, which barred public entities that seized property from transferring it to private hands for 10 years after the seizure. Other reforms are more modest, changing the definition of “blight” or throwing up other obstacles to overeager planners.
Read More of Post Kelo Reform off-site...Magdalena Preston says:
mislight unethylated aeschynanthus nobber ferison hypotoxic drengage revisory
<a href= http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/... >Hall: Up a Tree</a>
http://www.singingduo.co.uk/
John Tillman, Illinois Policy Institute says:
Let's see if I understand this correctly. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack vetoed an
eminent-domain reform bill because it would "harm the economy" ("Eminent Reality" Review & Outlook, Jan. 30).
So, the government should be allowed to take one person's property and give it to another for the good of the economy? But when people advocate lowering the tax and regulatory burden for businesses and taxpayers, which also harm the economy, Mr. Vilsack and his fellow tax, spend and regulate brethren are always opposed. So it isn't really about the economy, it's about who has the
power, who wants to keep it and whose rights are trampled in the process. Be disgusted -- and respond accordingly when Mr. Vilsack and his ilk come calling for your vote.
John Tillman
CEO
Illinois Policy Institute
Golf, Ill.