Views From the Opposing Camp On Eminent Domain

Matthew Greller, executive director for the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns weighed in recently in the Indianapolis Star on HB 1010, the proposed bill for reform of the use of eminent domain in the State of Indiana. Mr. Greller’s position, unsurprisingly, is that eminent domain is rarely used and when it is, it is only with the best of intentions and when there is no other recourse. He also notes below that we may simply be overreacting.

It's possible the bill's sponsors may be overreacting to the much-publicized impasse between the Indiana Stadium and Convention Building Authority and N.K. Hurst Co. over property needed for the new stadium project. This single case should not rush us to judgment that could have unfortunate ramifications.

I don’t think N.K. Hurst, as big a hot-button topic as that has been lately, is why there’s such a “rush”, if you could call a 5-month plus review a “rush”, to decide how to modify eminent domain. I notice Mr. Greller sees no need to attribute any of the haste to the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. No, that could have nothing to do with it.

Eminent domain is a rarely used government action, frequently upheld by state and federal courts, that lets a city or town acquire property with just compensation and relocation expenses to property owners. It may be used only for the public good, with stringent review and public input. It is used only as a last resort after all private negotiations have failed. Without eminent domain, many roads, sewer lines, water resources and other public projects would never have been completed.

But no one is complaining about roads, sewer lines, water resources and “other public projects”. In fact, at no point have I heard one of the legislators or land-rights proponents speak out against this at all. The primary focus and main concern for such legislation has been private land taken by a local government and given to a private developer. Why this isn’t mentioned in the preceding paragraph is obvious, but very telling of the quality of Mr. Greller’s argument.

He also notes something I hear often about just compensation and relocation expenses. In the cases I’ve reviewed, usually the land owners are offered market value of their property and maybe a little extra, but never “just compensation” or much in the way of relocation expenses. Maybe my case review isn’t broad enough, but the IACT’s own lawyer stated in legislative hearings nothing of relocation expenses. He spoke only of appraisers for the town or city and if required appraisers for the property owner attempting to hammer out the value of the site. He spoke nothing of “just compensation” for essentially kicking out the rightful owner to make way for someone who needs a political favor. Luckily, the legislative members at the hearing took note of that as well,.

Without the possible use of eminent domain, Indiana probably would not have the AM General Plant in Mishawaka, the Toyota plant in Gibson County or the Isuzu plant in Tippecanoe County.

More recently, eminent domain was a factor in the Fall Creek Place project in Indianapolis, the revitalization of an entire inner-city neighborhood that earlier had been plagued with blight and street crime.

In the city's acquisition of more than 250 properties, 28 cases of eminent domain were filed and used only when the owners of the property could not be found.

So here we have the private uses not mentioned earlier, but now mentioned in case format. Using auto plants as examples of good uses for eminent domain, to me, is bad form. Any business should be able to buy the property it needs from the individuals who are the rightful owners. Abandoned property and the like is a good candidate for eminent domain, but I find it highly dubious for Mr. Greller to try and push this off as the norm. Such businesses come off more like Harvey Korman in Blazing Saddles than the noble beneficiaries of the public trust through eminent domain.

HB 1010, with all its new restrictions, is not needed to protect those rights. In fact, in a state where many economic development initiatives are being pursued with a sense of urgency, HB 1010 could well be counterproductive.

Now we’re getting down to brass tacks. It’s bad business for the state and municipalities! Well, that makes it ok then. Rights are only expedient as long as they don’t interfere with business. Regardless of what he meant to say, that’s the jist of Mr. Greller’s statement. Interpret it however you want, he plainly points out that money is the bottom line. And perhaps, again, he hasn’t been paying much attention to the news.

The Kelo decision has sparked a wave of eminent domain abuses as municipalities now feel they have carte blanche to take property for private development as necessary. Poor Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, Oklahoma is a prime example, being threatened by potential development of a Home Depot. Despite Mr. Greller’s objections, he is either ignoring or just ignorant of the abuses currently underway. Indiana residents simply want fair protection from those with not quite as noble intentions as the towns represented by Mr. Greller.