Walter In Denver

Here's a Problem

The point-counterpoint feature in Saturday's Rocky tackled the eminent domain controversy. The state lege is looking to rein in the ability of local governments to seize private property for use by other private entities.

First up, William H. Mellor of the Institute for Justice. I don't find anything remarkable about his piece. He just states the obvious, that seizing one person's property for another person's use is a terrible abuse of government power.

More interesting is the rebuttal, written by Northglenn, Colo. Mayor Kathie Novak. Her premise is flawed, and very typical of the governing mindset. Right off the bat she falls into the moral morass:

It's the job of local governments to protect the current well-being and plan for the long-term best interests of their communities. Urban renewal gives local authorities the tools to do just that by allowing them to clean up deteriorating parts of town, revitalize local economies, provide new jobs and opportunities to local citizens and improve the quality of life for all residents.

That's only true if you accept the premise that government should control the well-being of residents. If you believe citizens should be responsible for their own well-being then you may see a very different role for government.

Later Mayor Novak shows her true colors:

According to proponents of these bills, local governments are driven by civic greed, focused on the pursuit of tax revenue above all else. While that imagery is dramatic, it is simplistic and inaccurate.

While boosting local economies is critical, it is only one reason why urban renewal is so important. Redevelopment efforts in Colorado have resulted in the preservation and redevelopment of historic buildings, the creation of affordable housing and open space, and the cleanup of polluted, dangerous and abandoned sites - all of which improved the overall quality of life for citizens.

And municipalities need not be ashamed of also looking for ways to increase the revenue that is critical for the success of local communities - especially in tough economic times.

She's baldly claiming that the needs of government ("community") outweigh the rights of individuals, so much so that government should be allowed to seize private property just because they need the money.

Furthermore, she doesn't seem to recognize that redevelopment could be achieved through other means. It's either government action or nothing, because from her point of view government represents the community, but that's only possible if every element of the community shares the view of the government.

If that were true she wouldn't need to take anyone's property, because property owners would already be working toward the same goals as government.

Mayor Novak's philosophy and attitude toward government action is, in my experience, typical of the political class. Their ideal world is planned from the top down, and allowing individuals to act on their own just gets in the way of the public good. People who feel differently generally don't get involved in government, and that's a problem. I don't know what political party the Mayor is affiliated with, if any, and it doesn't matter. Both of the major parties are populated with those of the same mindset.

Posted by Walter at February 22, 2004 11:15 AM