Eminent Domain Part II

Washington DC is the next city to take advantage of that deplorable SCOTUS ruling we are calling Eminent Domain. The Washington Times reports this:

The District will begin using eminent domain to acquire parcels of land at the site of the Washington Nationals' ballpark by the end of this month, after unsuccessful negotiations with nearly half of the landowners.

The article goes on to say they have $97 million set aside to buy the properties and help landowners relocate. “The city made offers to all 23 landowners on the site last month but received no response from 10...Many property owners on the site said the city's offers are inadequate.”

Inadequate?

That’s a lot of money for 23 landowners, isn’t it? That comes out to over 4.2 million apiece. 23 landowners on 21 acres. Not real large properties after you discount the area covered by streets and driveways and houses. It doesn’t sound to me, at 23 landowners on only 21 total acres, that there are millionaires living in those houses.

That kind of makes me wish I was a landowner in Washington DC.

I wonder if those 10 landowners aren’t responding because they don’t want to move. I wonder why they would turn down over 4 million. Could there be more to the story?

(Back in Wichita, there is a large sprawling nursing home on the cities west side that has a quaint little yellow cottage smack dab in the middle of the complex. I thought it was the residence of the manager of the home, but I found out that it was owned by an elderly woman, who simply refused to sell when the care home was buying up all the property in the area in order to build there. So they built the home around her.)

Is there a difference between this case of eminent domain and the one in Riviera Beach, Florida?

I think there is.

In Florida, dozens of poor people are in danger of being displaced so private developers can build a yacht club and condominiums. In DC, they are being offered a hefty sum of money to move so the city can build a new baseball stadium. I haven’t heard how much the city of Riviera Beach is offering the people for their homes.

The difference is in the word “private”. Homes are being taken and handed over to private developers in one instance and landowners will be moved to provide a place for public use in the other.

Private use versus public use.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t what DC is doing constitutional before the Kelo decision?

Now, before you accuse me of being one of those evil Republicans that don’t care about poor people, consider this:

The fact is, the 5th amendment to the Constitution reads thusly:

“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

The law is clear. This is not, in this case, another Riviera Beach. Now, if a humble, uneducated blogger like me can interpret the constitution, is there any doubt Miss Harriet Miers can?

Ok, maybe it stinks, but as long as due process of law is followed, I think 4.2 million dollars can be considered “just compensation“, therefore this case doesn’t fall under the Kelo decision.