Jackson Free Press

The Mississippi Legislature seemed in no mood to give Gov. Haley Barbour's thoughts on eminent domain any consideration yesterday. Barbour called a special legislative session in the midst of the lawmaker's budget negotiations to debate his proposal to add restrictions to the current law.

Earlier this year, however, the legislature sent its version of restrictions to the governor in the form of House Bill 803, which would have prevented the government from seizing private property for private business interests. Barbour vetoed that bill, calling it "fatally flawed," saying it would prevent the state from attracting new business and jobs. The House promptly overrode the veto, but Senators had second thoughts and upheld the veto, killing the bill.

Lobbyists for the Farm Bureau reportedly thought Barbour's proposal was too weak, and lawmakers never addressed the governor's request during the special session.

Previous Commentsshow

Damon Root over at Reason Magazine has written an editorial about Barbour's flacid attempt to re-vitalize the eminent domain issue in Sold Down the River: How Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour sabotaged eminent domain reform. Here are a few paragraphs from the piece: Last Thursday, the situation went from bad to worse, as Barbour introduced an eminent domain bill of his own during a special legislative session. It's a tricky piece of work, one designed to appease lawmakers and voters by borrowing some of the best language from the vetoed bill, yet with certain disastrous additions to the text. Here's how Barbour's eminent domain "reform" bill reads (emphasis added): The right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of taking or damaging privately owned real property for private development, for a private purpose, for enhancement of tax revenue, or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership or other business entity, unless the taking of private property is authorized for a project under the Mississippi Major Economic Impact Act. The Mississippi Major Economic Impact Act, of course, is one of the biggest reasons why the state needs eminent domain reform. Indeed, that act facilitates the very sort of sweetheart deals between politicians, developers, corporations, and the Mississippi Development Authority that H.B. 803 (the bill Barbour vetoed) was specifically designed to prevent. So in the alleged name of protecting property rights, Barbour champions legislation that would undermine those rights even further. ... In March 1792, James Madison took to the pages of the National Gazette to explain why property rights were essential to the preservation of a free society. "Where an excess of power prevails," Madison observed, "property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." Here's hoping those lawmakers do the right thing and stand up one more time for Mississippi's victimized property owners.

Ronni_Mott

May 12 2009

Please name someone is Mississippi that has been harmed under the current eminent domain law where the state has taken property for a private developer.

QB

May 13 2009

Fat Harry, we've gone over this already when Barbour first threatened to veto the bill on this thread. To reiterate: Here's a study from the Institute for Justice that details the inequity of the process. Here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor (pre-Kelso) that talks about another IJ study that "cited ... more than 10,000 other examples of misuse of eminent domain. In 3,700 cases, homeowners or small business were forced to sell property to private developers." The story concludes: "Broadening the tax base and encouraging urban renewal is one thing. Exercising eminent domain for strictly private development is another. Citizens must ensure their elected officials know the difference." Also, see Steven Greenhut's book "Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain." Here's a little history lesson on the subject from the Castle Coalition. Also, see this excellent piece, "How Eminent Domain Ran Amok" by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In Misssissippi recently, eminent domain was used to procure land for Nissan in Canton without property owners able to negotiate with the company for the best prices, and was successfully stopped at JSU. Here are the questions for you: Why should private citizens have to fight the government and private industry to hold on to their own property? Why should government have the right to claim property for private interests? Why shouldn't private business interests (like Nissan) have to negotiate with property owners just like any other private citizen?

Ronni_Mott

May 13 2009

It happened with many residents for the Nissan Plant. Several people tried to hold out to the bitter end but, with no avail. Where have you been, Fat Harry? It happened with the development of North Park Mall and a large strip of land on County Line Road. Most of the people who have lost land to the State are rich in land but, but poor in resources to fight. Sadly, most are black.

justjess

May 13 2009