Home
 Fighting the Good Fight
Hope
Seizing property and assets
A movement that just keeps growing
Confronting government regulations
Exposing search and seizure abuse
Defending the public interest
Defending home schooling families
Civilianizing the military
The much maligned Father Divine
Battling the degrading war
Operation Self-Defense
Allied to prevent loss of liberties
Rutherford's work is never done
Ending the drugging of children
Black pride and business
An indispensable business
Beware the tyranny of conformity
Uniontown entrepreneur
A victory in the battle against race preferences
Quotas take another hit
Turning the tide of illegal workers
Abuse of eminent domain
Preventing the seizure of assets
Making the most of opportunities
Opposing feminist malice
Do medicated children make for happy teachers?
Whose property is it anyway?
An Internet victory
No place for 7 watts of religion
Small victories
Homeschooling
Seizing property for private gain
The end of forced "diversity"?
More private property battles
Ending racial bean-counting
Foreign law or the Bill of Rights?
School choice: Milwaukee's successful battle
An old-fashioned Sagebrush Rebellion
The abuse goes on
How they did it; a grassroots success story
Renegade firefighters save their town
Grit and survival
Land in real estate limbo
Losing the battle for privacy
Playing with FIRE
The Sawgrass Rebellion struggles on
A place to live
Two victories
The corrupting influence of asset forfeiture
A noble gesture
A good ruling against a bad law
A victory and more work ahead
Reducing a source of votes and cheap labor
Smoke is not enough
Incremental amnesty
Using "blight" to seize property
More campus suppression of speech
Enemies of school choice
Getting a second chance
When charges are treated like verdicts
Doing it the old-fashioned way
Patriot resistance
Another step forward
Free speech to fit a gazebo
Winning free speech rights on campus
How long will this go on?
Good intentions, bad consequences
Speech codes and apologies
Beyond the bounds
Eminent domain: the nationwide epidemic
Another day, another victory
Japan for the Japanese
When judges don't judge
Trying to be tougher than the next guy
Another victim of eminent domain
Mixed opinions on southern heritage
Chipping away at set asides and quotas
Prosecution for profit
His name was lost, but not his deeds
The memorial vs. Goliath
Subverting "diversity"
A biased administration forced to uphold free speech
Incremental loss of freedom
Getting real with "replacement" populations
Flattering words lead to a lawsuit
Devising new tricks to confiscate property
Free speech allies
Shedding light on history
Pay up, shut up, and be ignored
Getting closer to real "diversity"
Winning some battles in Leviathan's war
Five more years for your thoughts
Cruel and irrational
Encouraging illegal immigration
Turning women into warriors
Liberated from Jackson
Utah's "hate crimes" lobby tries again
A lost battle in the war against "hate crime" laws
A small, but effective army
The enemies have already prevailed
The battle for immigration reform heats up
A populist movement subverting the elites
Taking the heat, but not backing down
Environment is not destiny
 
Printer-friendly versionView Printable Format
Contact Issues & Views
(Also enter "Subscribe" to receive free Biweekly Updates)

The abuse goes on

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views July 1, 2002]

The property-snatchers are growing bolder and bolder. In previous weeks, (January 14), (February 11), and (April 22), I&V has reported on attempts by various governments (mainly local and state) to seize land from private citizens, in order to profit from its re-sale to other private citizens. Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, writes that "Most people would be shocked to discover that governments across the nation are taking individuals' homes only to transfer that property to a favored business or neighbor. Or that businesses are often being condemned so another business can take their property and make a larger profit."

Jim Hinch of the Orange County Register (5/30/02) writes about the Cypress City Council's vote to use eminent domain against the Cottonwood Christian Center:

Cypress is the first city in Orange County to use eminent domain to force a church off its land in exchange for a retail center. Its action Tuesday put it in the cross hairs of a raging debate over whether the need for new highways, wider streets, revitalized downtowns or more tax revenue gives governments the right to force people to sell their property. . . .

Michael Dardia, fellow of the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California, says that while governments once used eminent domain for public projects like highways and water-treatment plants, redevelopment agencies now use the power to ease property transactions for private businesses that will generate more sales-tax revenue.

Chris Norby, a Fullerton councilman who has long opposed redevelopment, said big companies take advantage of cities' desperation for sales-tax revenue by encouraging them to use eminent domain for the companies' benefit. "It's distorted the private property system, and it's the big companies that are doing it," he said.

In Garden Grove, California, city planning commissioners are taking a slower route before exercising eminent domain. Although they have targeted over 600 homes on land that would be redeveloped into an "entertainment resort" or a "theme park," they promise residents that the commission can be trusted to act fairly. The Orange County Register (6/7/02) reports:

Since January, city officials have been sending letters to residents in the targeted areas to inform them about the proposed plan, but many are scrambling to find an answer to the most pressing question: Will my home be taken away?

The City Council has the authority to use eminent domain until 2004. If this redevelopment plan is adopted, the council will extend its eminent domain authority for another 12 years. City leaders said they wouldn't use eminent domain to acquire homes until the city reaches an agreement with a developer to build a specific project. . . .

Residents have been rallying to get their neighborhoods out of the redevelopment proposal. About 300 residents have organized the Coalition of Concerned Garden Grove Citizens. Members have been going door to door, urging neighbors to take a stand against the possibility of losing their homes. Coalition member Verla Lambert stuck colorful signs in her yard that read, "United We Stand to Save Our Homes."

"We are not going to lose our homes," said Lambert, who's lived on Marble Place since 1957. "We can't. We've been here longer than the dirt in Garden Grove."

In describing the newly formed Castle Coalition, Clint Bullock says, "Across the country, there were isolated pockets of dedicated activists fighting to defeat plans to raze their homes and businesses for the benefit of private parties, but now they are uniting. The new network is called the Castle Coalition, because everyone's home, and everyone's property, is his castle--a place where he should be safe and free from government overreaching."

To learn more about the work of the Castle Coalition, visit their website and read the informative report, "Government Theft: The Top Ten Abuses of Eminent Domain, 1998-2002." These cases are selected from more than 100 such abuses around the country.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views


Printer-friendly version
Printer-friendly version

home | printable  

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views
All rights reserved.
Email the webmaster with comments on the site design.
Last updated: Thu May 20 14:08:11 2010 AKDT

?>