To answer a question from another thread, this Texas Observer article nicely summarizes George W. Bush’s use of the state’s power of eminent domain for personal gain in the Arlington stadium deal:
This transaction has been described to me by a Texan as “that’s capitalism for ya, buddy” - but I couldn’t find anything in it that could be described as a free market, or a fair negotiation, or a lack of government intervention. Could someone please explain what I’m failing to understand here? How is this not an abuse of government power?
This actually should be split up into two questions: (1) what are the procedures when a municipality or public agency takes private property for public use, and (2) was this taking of private property for use to build a ball-park for the for-profit Texas Rangers baseball team.
I can give you a general outline of the first question (based on my experience with New York law – YMMV). Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot take private property without just compensation. However, governmental entities usually have broad discretion to take whatever private property they believe they need to acomplish public purposes. They simply have to pay the owner of the property “just compensation.”
In New York, if a government agency wants to take real estate by eminent domain, it must get an appraisal of the property from a licensed appraiser. The agency will then apply for a court order condemning the property, and the agency must immediately pay the owner the appraised value. The owner has the right to go to court to object to the legality of the taking or the amount of the compensation. If the court finds the amount of compensation too little, then the agency must pay the owner the shortfall.
In Texas, it seems like the process is similar, though it is unclear whether an appraisal from a licensed appraiser is required. What happened is that the government agency came in with a real lowball price, and the court found that the compensation should have been about $5 million higher.
As to the second question of whether this is a valid public purpose, I don’t know, though I’m guessing that it would be. My understanding is that governmental agencies have pretty broad powers to label something a public purpose, and a stadium (like a municipal auditorium, concert hall, athletic field, or swimming pool) would qualify. However, as discussed in the linked article, some of the details are a bit fishy. Anyway, it appears that the court found it to be a valid public taking, but wacked the city and development agency on the amount of compensation.
In Texas, the qualifications seem to be getting more and more lenient. A couple of years ago, the city of Hurst (a suburb of Fort Worth right next door to Arlington) evicted homeowners with an eminent domain lawsuit to allow a shopping mall to expand. Read about it here, where it’s called “the greatest abuse of this historic power to date.”
It created a furor, but the city won. The linked article seems to be more than 2 years old, but it’s now a done deal, and the mall expansion has taken place (I’ve shopped in the new stores). This area is less than a mile from where my parents live, and it’s really weird visiting there now. An entire neighborhood of about 100 houses is just gone, replaced by stores.
General rule of thumb: Questions about politics and capitalism usually go in Great Debates, and this one is no exception. Although there are general questions related to the OP, they aren’t what was asked, so I’ll move the thread.