Jackson Free Press

Web exclusive

The House today passed an eminent-domain bill looking to limit the power of the state government to snatch private property for the use of non-government purposes.

The language in House Bill 300 rings familiar to readers who recall the state's eminent-domain issue with landowners like Madison County resident Lorenzo Archie, who in 2001 battled the state of Mississippi for his family's right to retain a one-acre plot coveted by the incoming Nissan plant, near Canton.

The state, through eminent domain, sought to condemn the Archies' land—which had been in the family for generations—for the use of the Nissan facility as a parking area. The state continued its attempts to take the property as public opinion shifted in favor of the Archies, and even continued the fight after some government officials admitted that they didn't even need it for the plant.

News of the event caught national momentum when a libertarian law firm, the Institute for Justice, out of Washington, joined forces with civil-rights group The Southern Christian Leadership Conference to represent the Archies.

Five years later, the memory still rings in the ears of some House members, explaining perhaps why the bill passed with a 77-vote majority.

Language in the bill makes it difficult for the state to begin eminent-domain proceedings for the purposes of private development—a chief issue argued by advocates of the Archies, who complained that the state was not trying to take the Archie property for government use but for private development and enrichment.

The bill is very specific about cutting businesses out of eminent domain proceedings: "…the right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of converting privately-owned real property for retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development; or for enhancement of tax revenue; or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation or other business entity."

Rep. Jamie Franks, D-Mooreville, who submitted the bill along with Rep. Edward Blackmon, D-Canton, said the bill should rightfully be a law.

"I'm glad they passed it," Franks said. "They should've passed it."

A total of 20 votes stood ineffectively against HB 300. All of those opponents, save Rep. Mary Ann Stevens, D-West, were Republican. Many of the opponents included representatives such as Reps. Bill Denny, Jim Ellington, Roger Ishee and Mike Lott—all of whom voted against suspending House rules on Jan. 2, that would've allowed the passing of MAEP, wind pool and state employee pay raise bills out of the House Appropriations Committee.

"I'd say the vote on that bill was pretty partisan," said Rep. Eric Fleming, D-Clinton. "I'm not sure why they (Republicans) would stand against property rights, but that's how the vote went down."

Previous Comments

ID

90626

Comment

Any idea if this new bill will help cut out speculators as well? Like the guy who was perfectly willing to resell the land he'd just bought at like $300k a acre? Guys like that would either make a killing or derail a project if no one wants to pay grossly inflated prices.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-01-03T20:26:04-06:00

ID

90627

Comment

The bill appears clear cut though lawyers would still have fun with it. The Archies are still heroes in my eyes. I didn't care if their plot stood smack dab in the middle of the assembly line. It was their property! Seems I remember my public educated civics lessons and property rights were central to the republic. Won't comment to the Republican angle as the first week in the house is all about postering. Trying to ram multiple spending bills in one day is irresponsible when they have never been read.

Author

Doc Rogers

Date

2007-01-03T21:57:22-06:00

ID

90628

Comment

Good for the House for passing this. I don't know why Republicans would oppose it (though Mike Lott seems to end up on the wrong side of pretty much everything); in Kelo v. New London, it was the conservative justices who stood up for property rights. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-03T22:02:39-06:00

ID

90629

Comment

The Archies are still heroes in my eyes. I didn't care if their plot stood smack dab in the middle of the assembly line. It was their property! I agree, Doc. We had just moved back, and that story was my first hint that the local media sucked. The Clarion-Ledger had all their Nissan coverage under a Nissan logo — a logo!!! — and barely questioned this whole thing. I remember the business editor there writing the dumbest column talking about how land had been in his family a long time, but he supported the taking anyway. It was disgusting, and helped motivate us to start this paper. Here's a column I wrote back then for the Progressive Populist: http://www.populist.com/01.16.ladd.html

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-03T22:45:49-06:00

ID

90630

Comment

You know, when certain professing conservatives stand for big government, deficit spending, imperial nation-building, Orwellian control over individual lives, and forced collective ownership of property, should they really call themselves conservatives anymore? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-03T23:17:54-06:00

ID

90631

Comment

I am surprised Republicans voted against it. Is there any reason why? The only reason I can think of is the bill was not strong enough in their taste unless Barbour told them to vote against it. I completely oppose the Kelo decision and any law we pass putting limits on eminent domain seizures is a good thing in my opinion.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-04T10:54:10-06:00

ID

90632

Comment

I assume, 'Fish, because Barbour and corporations want eminent-domain. Have you not noticed that the predominant GOP voices right now aren't actually "conservative"!?!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T10:56:43-06:00

ID

90633

Comment

I have stated that quite a few times in these forums. One thing about Molly Ivins, with whom I usually disagree. She said when Bush was first elected Conservatives would wind up disliking him. She was right. On this issue, IF that is the case, it puts Barbour and company at odds with conservatives. Most if not all leading conservatives and publications such as NR, WSJ Op-Ed Page, Buckley, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, etc strongly oppose the Kelo decision. Sowell thought it was a terrible decision (he wants to ban corporate subsidies by the way).

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-04T11:07:17-06:00

ID

90634

Comment

Would the word "fascism" be an exaggeration, I wonder? I mean, many of these folks don't even support gun rights on any consistent basis--witness the widespread support for Giuliani and Melton from folks who also support eminent domain, puritanical conduct laws, big government, imperial nation-building, deficit spending, restrictions on criticism of the government, surveillance of any American at executive discretion... I'm serious. Where is the conservatism here? What is being conserved? And what is this, if it isn't fascism? Is there another name for it? "Authoritarianism" could work, I guess, but that's too much of a $20 word. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-04T15:53:53-06:00

ID

90635

Comment

By the way, I would expect most purportedly conservative op-ed columnists to turn on a dime and support eminent domain if that becomes a feature of the aggressive right wing. Buckley and Will might dissent, but I would expect Limbaugh and Sowell to fall into line and change their views based on wherever the political winds of their movement seem to be heading. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-04T15:57:04-06:00

ID

90636

Comment

Spoonerism--I meant to say that Buckley and Sowell might dissent, but Limbaugh and Will would probably fall into line. In retrospect, I think Will would probably dissent, too, but there are still plenty of Ann Coulters, Michelle Malkins, Jonah Goldbergs, and so forth willing to be partisan hacks, so I expect the overall sentiment would still be very much pro-eminent domain. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-04T16:05:26-06:00

ID

90637

Comment

It is interesting that the Miss. Republicans would oppose a fundamental flaw in the use (or abuse) of eminent domain, when even the White House came out with an opinion against it earlier this year (ironic given the fact that the era of Republicans being the party of small government has been killed and buried by the Bush administration): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html This was in response to the Kelo case that Head mentioned earlier. After that case, the classic right-wing "limited government" conservatives were outraged (and rightfully so) at the growing abuse of eminent domain on behalf of private industry, while you actually had a few liberal politician supporting the notion as a way of revitalizing blighted areas and stimulating the tax base.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2007-01-04T17:51:24-06:00

ID

90638

Comment

Good point, ejeff. And the support for eminent domain from Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter ticked me off something mightily--as I said in a blog entry at the time, it makes one wonder if we were looking for our dreaded "corporate court" in the wrong place. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for the Kelo ruling; it is an innovation that conflates public and private ownership. If that went in the other direction, the Third Amendment would ban all military bases on U.S. soil! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-04T18:00:49-06:00

ID

90639

Comment

Tom: As I read the conservative mags quite a bit, I can assure you that most of them oppose Kelo and are pretty consistent in their logic and views on it.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-04T23:41:08-06:00