People are voicing serious (and legitimate) complaints about the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision to expand the scope of Eminent Domain to encompass land-grabs that would increase the tax base of the community. Now, after this decision, a private developer could pitch a proposal to the city or township and if the governing board of that township agreed, they could foreclose the private houses and lands of anyone not willing to sell.
Jen and I are farmers -- we are raising apple trees to make hard cider (we also will be making Mead, Cyser and Melomel -- first brews late this fall hopefully.) We also sell excess eggs and whatever we are growing that we cannot consume.
This organization: American Farmland Trust has an excellent and scary implication of Kelo -- what if developers want to build a housing development on some farmland. Rural ag land is not taxed at a high rate -- we don't need schools, roads, emergency services, water, sewage or highways for a bunch of trees. We have thirty acres and it's just Jen and me (although we plan to have kids).
If these thirty acres were developed (thinking 40-50 single-family houses), the county could charge much higher property taxes.
Fortunately, Whatcom County regulations where we are are strict -- we can see an example of this just to our north where someone bought a parcel of about 60 acres and they were only given permission to develop a few five acre lots to sell -- they had to keep 40 acres undeveloped. Driving around closer to Bellingham though and you see that the regulations are a lot looser. What obviously used to be farmland has new housing going up cheek to jowl.
Kelo will have a long long reach before it is repealed.
The Supremes stumbled big-time on this one...
Getting back to the American Farmland Trust article, they had some wonderful news to close with:
Critics of the ruling are already at work on legislation to hinder the use of eminent domain takings for economic development projects. On June 30, the House voted 231 to 189 to approve a measure that would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to seize private property to make way for profit-generating projects, such as hotels or malls. The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. Key members of the House and Senate have vowed to take even broader steps soon, and various states may also take action to impose stricter standards on eminent domain takings.
"Farmers concerned about the potential use of eminent domain in their areas should attend local government meetings and get involved in the relevant planning process," said Bob Wagner, AFT�s managing director for field programs.
Leave a comment