Score one for property owners

From RCP:

Opponents of eminent domain finally have something to celebrate. After a public campaign, Target Corp. has decided not to build a store on condemned property in Arlington Heights, Ill.

Five years ago, the Village trustees declared the International Plaza shopping center and other properties blighted, setting the stage for condemnation under eminent domain. The business owners who were to lose their stores fought the "blight" designation in court but failed.

Yet they didn't give up. They and their supporters held protests at trustee meetings. They were aided by the Sam Adams Alliance and Foundation, which launched a letter, telephone and flyer campaign that threatened to boycott Target if the company went through with its plan to occupy property seized by the government.
In late May, the Alliance triumphantly announced, "Target backed out of their contract with the Village. International Plaza tenants have saved the property from eminent domain abuse, at least for the time being."

The Village attorney said pending lawsuits by tenants of the shopping center were one reason for Target's decision.

It's only a reprieve. The trustees smell big bucks, so they may try to find another major chain to be the principal retailer in the 35-acre development area. In the past, several retailers have been more than willing to build on stolen property. So the residents of Arlington Heights and the Sam Adams Alliance may need to launch another campaign.

Nevertheless, Target's announcement is good news indeed.

The "takings" clause in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment says government cannot take private property "for public use without just compensation." I object to anyone having his property taken by force, but at least traditionally, this power of eminent domain ("superior ownership") was limited to the building of highways, bridges and parks -- things meant for general public benefit. But over the last 40 years, governments have redefined "public use" to include private use that they argue has public benefit. Towns began to condemn properties said to be "blighted" and hand them over to private developers, who promised higher tax revenues and jobs.
...
The use of eminent domain for private profit is the tip of the iceberg of an unappreciated threat to individual freedom. States and municipalities routinely engage in economic planning that would make the old Soviet Union blush. State and local planning boards manipulate the tax laws and hand out cash subsidies to favored retailers and manufacturers, while those without political connections bear the full tax burden or are shut out altogether. The favoritism escalates when governments feverishly compete with one another to attract an auto-assembly plant or a big-box store. Private businesses play each government off against the others to get the most corporate welfare possible.

Who pays? The taxpayers and property owners who are forced to sacrifice for the "common good."
...
The Arlington Heights story shows that big companies respond to public protests. There is a lesson in that. Governments will stop stealing private property from the powerless when businesses refuse to cooperate in this larceny. So the next time one of those giants signs on to a development project made possible by eminent domain, give them an earful.

At least the good guys win every once in a while.

Actual headline: "Property Rights Impede Race To Save Louisiana Coast"

Why, the nerve! How dare property owners exercise their rights and use their property in a manner they see fit! In Louisiana:

Yet what should have been a quick sprint over a short distance to save the coast regularly turns into an endless marathon through a maze of property rights issues, coastal workers say.

Publicly financed projects to prevent southeast Louisiana from being swallowed by the Gulf often are slowed to a crawl and in some cases stopped in deference to the property rights of the very landowners the projects are designed to protect, state officials said. And if Louisiana ends up losing its battle against the Gulf — forcing the evacuation of tens of thousands of residents — respect for the property rights of a few could well be a major contributing factor.

Goodness knows that a state project under the competent leadership of Gov. Blanco would work out incredibly well, if not for those backwoods coon#ss property owners, right? Continuing:

The issue of the state “taking'’ private property to rebuild the coast exploded onto the public’s radar in 2002 when judges in Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes awarded local oyster fishers more than $1 billion in damages the harvesters claimed had been caused by the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion Project — originally built to improve oyster grounds and strengthen wetlands against erosion.

OK, so that was only one project that the state screwed up and harmed those it was supposed to benefit! Why use this one isolated case to portray Louisiana as an incompetently run state? For those of you on the left, that was sarcasm.

See-Dubya asks the following exit question:

Can you imagine the Times-Picayune running a piece complaining about how, instead of property rights, the free press rights of a few loudmouths was holding up the important work of the state? Of course not, that would be outrageous. Fascist, even!