Now, I love Wal-Mart. I like their low prices and selection. However…
I listen to Neal Boortz at work. He’s a libertarian talk show host out of Atlanta, and for the past few days, he’s been going on a tirade on what is happening in Alabaster, Alabama.
Apparently, a group called Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a Wal-Mart. Problem is, there’s a bunch of homes smack on the land that CPT wants to use. The landowners don’t want to sell. So, CPT is using the county government to condemn the property under eminent domain to build the Wal-Mart.
Eminent domain, I thought, was to be used for roads and schools and such, not to take private property away to give to another private property landowner.
I only have one link, this one.. Go down to Draw the Line in Alabaster. Now, I know Neal is not for everyone. I have been unable to Google any other links on this issue.
What do you think? Should govt’s have the power to take private property away to give to Wal-Marts and Targets and Home Depots? Or is the higher tax revenue a greater benefit to the community?
The constitutional holdings with regard to eminent domain are pretty clear – but this is one of the cases where there is a gray area.
Land may be taken from an unwilling owner so long as (a) he receives full value for his property, by a fair, unbiased appraisal of its actual worth, and (b) it is used for a public purpose.
In cases regarding urban renewal and planned development, the taking of land for resale to a private developer has been allowed only when the efforts of the private developer will demonstably conduce to the public good of the whole community, and is in accord with a comprehensive plan adopted for the latter purpose.
So it comes down to, is there a demonstrable public benefit to having a Walmart at that location that is sufficiently strong, in the eyes of the court, to override the rights of the property owners in their property?
I don’t propose to have an answer to that, though my first impulse would be to say no. It’s clear what the public benefit is when a row of decrepit old warehouses and a couple of blocks of blighted tenements are taken out and replaced with an urban mall and new subsidized apartment complexes. It’s not immediately obvious what it is here.
(Note that I’m speaking of the law as currently understood and applied; any libertarian worth his salt could explain to you where this is flat-out wrong from a moral standpoint, and I’d hesitate to argue with him.)
This type of condemnation is too prone to be governed by political and not social considerations. Abuse would seem to be the norm and not the exception, if you look at it pragmatically. There have been cases of houses in the middle of industrial or commercial areas based on someone or several someones not selling out. It’s not the end of the universe, is it?
There must be another tract of land for sale somewhere near there in Alabama, I’m guessing. Florida, in the midst of a home building boom, could still squeeze a big commercial property in just about anywhere. Perhaps the zoning officials haven’t been properly bribed?
The time has come to issue a blanket prohibition on all “eminent domain” claims that involve transfer to some sort of business or “developer” concern. Eminent domain must be limited exclusively to true public projects. Schools, roads, the basic infrastructure of a free society. Using it to turn land over to business interests is nothing but corporation communism.
One of the landmark cases in this area took place in Detroit, where General Motors managed to get the City of Detroit to condemn a large chunk of real estate so GM could build a new plant. Detroit argued, successfully, that building the plant would benefit the city by providing a lot of jobs (which it did). No doubt Wal-Mart is making the same argument, and an agreeable court is going along with it.
I see a difference in character between Wal-Mart and General Motors, however. A General Motors plant in Detroit is not going to create competition pressure on smaller, local automoblie manufacturers, as there aren’t any for them to compete with, and the people they will be hiring will be hired from joblessness as much as from other automobile manufacturers. Decreasing local unemployment is almost always good for the community. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, will inevitably put many local businesses out of business as well as hire away their workers rather than create new jobs. It is not clear to me that a Wal-Mart will benefit the local economy at all in the long run and might even hurt it as the revenue Wal-Mart will bring in will be in substitution for revenue that had been going to local businessowners and which would have otherwise stayed in the community. Now it’ll be going to Bentonville.
Wal-Marts are almost never good for the local economy in the long run, although the siren call of “low low prices” is definitely appealing. Many communities have consented to a Wal-Mart because the working poor have demanded it, only to pay the price in the long run as jobs and community small businesses dry up in the withering heat of a Wal-Mart price war.
This is a large part of why I do not shop at Wal-Mart.
Maybe they’ll have to downsize from a MegloWal-Mart to a SuperSizeWal-Mart. I don’t think Wal-Marts demand for real estate is anywhere near as significant as an auto factory in several ways.
I agree with KellyM, the impact on the community is mixed. An auto factory is far more beneficial to the community at large, especially the retail community.
Downsizing a retail establishment is far easier than a car factory which has certain requirements – from immense to gargantuan.
For example, on a really large scale, Disney faced one of the worst problems ever in coming to Orlando. His land requirements were on the scale of a county in some places. He used dummy corporations to buy up different parcels to keep one holdout from blackmailing him into becoming Monorail-Over-The-Freak’s-House-Land.
Finding other properties should be therefore much easier for Wal-Mart than an auto factory.
Wal-Mart will not be seriously harmed by upholding the homeowners’ rights in this case. OTOH, to uphold Wal-Mart’s use of eminent domain is not only an abuse but destroys the homeowners’ rights to use, enjoy, and ultimately convey or devise the land.
Regardless of which is better for a community, GM or Wal-Mart, I cannot support any public condemnation of property for any private business.
If the landowner doesn’t want to sell, and the property is in good repair, that’s it, so sorry, find another place to build. To pressure a local gov’t to do what the business can’t do privately just begs abuse.
It’s disregarding the fact that some homeowners might have bought their homes in that area thinking they would appreciate in value, and plan on cashing that in at some time. Much like Wal-Mart might cash in on a parcel if they ever close a Wal-Mart. There will be one on the summit of Everest before that happens. Snow shoes 1/2 off!
Once government starts deciding who gets to make a profit based on the size of your entity, we – meaning actual humans – are screwed.
The wording in the definition given above of “eminent domain” is, frankly, kind of cheesy. I mean, technically, it’s okay for me to burn your house down if I promise to benefit the community in some way?
Yes, I know it’s a hamhanded comparision… but I think it holds water. Particularly when a statute that was originally intended to allow a community to grow and arrange itself in an orderly fashion is used to allow a private corporation to place its stores in a manner most conducive to its own profit. You AREN’T going to tell me that there isn’t any unoccupied land around there they could build a Wal-Mart on.
…and if the placement of a frickin’ Wal-Mart, of all things, is of such tremendous benefit to the community that private citizens MUST be denied their rights so that it can be built… if it is so VITAL AND NECESSARY to the PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY…
…then they’re sayin’ that if they built it a mile out of town, people wouldn’t go shop there, anyway? The people of this community do have automobiles, yes?
This case is a classic example of the effects of unbridled greed and power.
The petty officials of petty Alabaster unite with the land barrons of Colonial Properties to intiminate and coerce amd ultimatly squeeze six black families off their land so a cash windfall in the form of a Wal Mart can be built.
However. This case has no glamour; it is not racial discrimination.
Hell, Wal-mart, Colonial Properties, and the petty Alabaster City Council would conspire to drag these people off their family’s traditional homesteads if they were red, green or blue.
I find myself agreeing with ivylass on this one. I think the Detroit case was wrongfully decided and that Detroit should not have been licensed by eminent domain to raze several square miles so GM could have a plant, no matter what the good to the community would have been. Eminent domain should be used only for public purposes, not simply for public benefit; land acquired through the use of eminent domain should be required to remain in public hands for at least a substantial time if not indefinitely; and if the dedication to public purpose should ever lapse, the prior landowner should at least have right of first refusal with regard to the subsequent disposal of the land.
And I won’t even discuss California’s attempts to extend eminent domain to intangible property such as franchise agreements.
Doesn’t some of the blame lay at the feet of the judges who have allowed such a liberal interpretation of eminent domain? Also, some may consider Wal Mart to be evil incarnate, but the fact is they couldn’t get away with this without the gov’t’s help. Wal-Mart could pitch a fit and offer free Sam’s Club memberships for life, but if the local officials didn’t roll over, Wal-Mart’s hands would still be tied.
Um… Yes, judges are to blame in part for some of this stuff, certainly the appellate cases on point. However, this is another separation of powers area where courts try to tred lightly, at least on the other branch of government.
Courts are usually benificent and wise and have logical reasons for making the decisions they do. Heh heh. Actually, that’s often true. In the instant case, we need the help of some judges so now might not be the time to start slinging around any blame or judicial slurs, ifyanowadimean?
Every case is different. There are some very important distinguishing facts if we’re using the auto plant case as precedent. We (the faux legal team) are arguing in the alternative: one, that this is an absurd abuse of the power of eminent domain. Two, if it might be considered within the context of eminent domain, we think the so-called public benefits are overclaimed, and the rights of the private landowners are being ignored – purely, it appears, because Wal-Mart is bigger.
That’s a dangerous precedent, if every big business venture becomes part of some alleged public plan for our benefit. I don’t like my chances in court.
There’s one other famous case involving eminent domain to benefit a private concern that you are no doubt aware of: that of the Ballpark in Arlington, where the Texas Rangers play. They condemned the land and pushed out the property owners, in order to build a stadium for a privately-owned concern, the Rangers baseball clug. Some guy named George W. Bush was part of the ownership group, and his share of the profit from that deal gave him the money to go into politics, unfortunately for us all.
Then, if I follow your argument correctly, there is no reason for anyone to keep their homes, since the tax revenue benefit of a superstore far outweighs any home property taxes, unless you live in a mansion.
Very frightening. I believe the govt’s are arguing that the extra taxes is a public benefit. I would argue it is not a direct benefit, like widening a highway, but an indirect benefit.
If we were to follow the argument that Boortz is reporting the government is using to it’s logical conclusion, yes, any large concern would de facto have greater legal standing in your property than you. They create jobs and pay more taxes. You move.
I agree that it’s a speculative and indirect benefit, although the reasonable speculation would tend towards more taxes from a big Wal-Mart than some private homes. Irrelevant.
I’m arguing against use of that standard entirely because eminent domain is one of those powers that begs to be abused, from the standards for condemnation (at issue here), through the valuation,* into the project itself. We should keep a tight lid on eminent domain, moreso than we already have. We don’t want to conflate government and business, well, any more than it already is.
Roads are a different story. But, there is a famous (not famous enough for me to remember the key spelling, however) story about the US Interstate Highway System and a Mrs. “Orcutt’s” (sp?) driveway during the Johnson Adminstration.
*We let the – free – market do that in most situations.
Wal-Mart’s solution to this situation is quite simple, and is the solution you see in any case where one private party wants another’s property.
Pay more. Pay so much that the propertyholder feels foolish for refusing. Give these poor families $10 million each for their homes.
Oh, what? Then it wouldn’t be cost-effective for Wal-Mart to build their store? Too f-ing bad. Welcome to America, Sam Walton (RIP). Find some different land. For Christ’s sake, Alabama has to have the lowest property values of any state in the union! Pony up a little cash, you poor, poor, unbelievably filthy rich corporation!
Of course, the thing we’re not looking at is the subtle leverage Wal-mart is probably employing vs. the town officials: “Let us build here, and all of our jobs and tax revenue will be yours. Or else, we’ll go to Shelbyville just across the river, and THEY will get all the benefits. You’ll get nothing, and you’ll be kicking yourself next November when the elections come up, and unemployed voters with terrible schools remember that YOU kept us out of town…”