The Observation Deck

I saw this today on whitehouse.gov (linked from drudgereport)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 23-10.html

Maybe some of the Bush bashers in Lakewood will turn another leaf hehehehe Too bad this looks like it just applies to federal gov't and not all gov'ts, although I am not an expert on law.

Doug

I'm against taking private land for public windmills

----------------------------------------

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 23, 2006

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People




By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public ****** and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. ****** (asterisks added by Doug)

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.

You are right Doug, it is a little empty. It does not apply to all govermental agencies - only to the federal government and it doesn't go as far as the other proposals which seek to limit federal funding to projects where eminent domain is used.

However, 21 states have passed measures signed by their legislatures that will limit Eminent Domain for Private Gain. I have been working with the State legislature on this and I do believe that they will pass a law to this effect in Ohio - with an exception for blight - and they are still rangling heavily on that.

And BTW, Doug, I don't think anyone has suggested eminent domain for windmills nor have I heard anyone suggesting a levy for windmills. But I do think that renewable energy is the way of the future and we should be open to exploring it.

DougHuntingdon wrote:Maybe some of the Bush bashers in Lakewood will turn another leaf hehehehe Too bad this looks like it just applies to federal gov't and not all gov'ts, although I am not an expert on law.

Doug

I never saw this as a party issue though it did seem to outrage Conservatives and Libertarians the most as they rightly saw it as way too much govermental control over investments.

I still maintain there is little incentive to invest in a community that is willing to take the property from you in the future. It is only common sense. Just to get everyone moaning one more time. I have to think misionaries that worked with cannibals were never 100% at ease when dinner time rolled around.

As far as Bush, to quote, "Even a blind acorn can get found by a squirrel now and then."
.

Both parties are outraged, but for different reasons. I was just at a national conference two weeks ago on the subject. The Democrats oppose it because it preys on minorities, senior citizens and the politically weak. The NAACP spoke out forcibly and eloquently against it. It is just a way of saying in most cases that the poor and the middle class don't deserve a view. Water front property is being taken by eminent domain as quickly as it can be grabbed up.

On the other hand the Republicans oppose it because they seriously believe that the right to own property is one of the important rights given to us by the consitutition. Government does not know better what to do with your property than the owner does. Urban redevelopment has proved to be a disaster in this country. The free market and capitalism works.

The National Council of Churches was also there and spoke forcibly against eminent domain for private development.

Lynn

It is amazing how this stuff falls, and thanks for the update. One of the things I always found odd was the "better use" part of Eminent Domain, with the trickle down to "more profitable use." This would be true with every piece of property in the world, including one where the building was just finished and is new!

I remember a couple years ago suggesting that the city acquire St. Augustine's for condos and got a call from one of the good sisters involved who went into great detail about how Eminent Domain has made churches one of their prime targets.

However I also can see two areas in Lakewood where very few would disagree with it's use as a last resort. The problem is when it is abused.

FWIW


.