Floyd Wynne with THE VIEW FROM HERE     6/27/06

           Should the government t be able to take over your property so that they can turn it over to a private developer?

           The issue is the use of eminent domain.

           The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says:  “n or shall private property be taken  for public use, without just compensation.”

One can  readily understand that such action can be taken  when a government, city, county, state or federal needs to use the action in order to complete a road, erect a hospital or other such uses that strictly are for public use.

In recent months there have been a number of cases where a city or county government has used eminent domain to take control of private property, pay a just price for it, then turn it over to a developer on the grounds that the increased tax revenue would therefore benefit the public in bigger tax revenues for the governmental entity.

On Friday of last week the President of the United States, George W. Bush entered the controversy on behalf of the Federal government.  He issued an executive order stating in Section l that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for public use with just compensation which is also stated in the constitution, for the “purpose of benefiting the general public.”  He limits this use by stating that it may not be used “for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. \

The controversy has been over the meaning of “public use”.  The President emphasized that public use was for such things as a road or a hospital, for instance.

In a recent suit Berman  vs. Parker the Supreme Court observed “The concept of the pub lic welfare is broad and inclusive.  The values ir represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary.  It is within the power of the Legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean , well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.  For public use, then, it may well be that “public interest or Public welfare is the more correct phrase.”

The court also ruled some years ago that eminent domain or condemnation proceedings of a government were not open to judicial review, but that

Issue also has come under public protest.

           Some States have already passed legislation clearly requiring that any eminent domain actions be strictly for public usage….not public interest or public welfare.    As yet Oregon is not among those states.

While the problem has not risen in Oregon yet, there are other factors that skirt the law of eminent domain.   Among them is the actions of the Environmental protection agency when they declare any  wetlands on any private property must be kept that way.  That is also a threat to what we consider property ownership rights.

So you thought you controlled your own property…..you really don’t. Not only is there eminent domain, but zoning, building restrictions, nuisance ordinances, condemnation proceedings….and on and on.

We congratulate the President on taking a firm stand against illegal eminent domain by the Federal government.   What we need now is legislation by Oregon along the same lines.

This is Floyd Wynne and That’s THE VIEW FROM HERE.