« UPDATED! Queen Ann Places Foot In Mouth | Main | Newspaper Reader Clarifies Abortion Issue »
January 27, 2006
Story Update: Eminent Domain Hoax
In my post Blogosphere Spreads Eminent Domain Hoax, I relay a story about church property being taken through the use of eminent domain. Then I claim that the story is a hoax.
As it turns out, the Oklahoma Constitution supports my claim.
Here is what the constitution says about the taking of private property for private use.
Article II: BILL OF RIGHTS
Section II-23: Private property - Taking or damaging for private use.
No private property shall be taken or damaged for private use,
with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner,
except for private ways of necessity, or for drains and ditches
across lands of others for agricultural, mining, or sanitary
purposes, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
According to the story published by National Review Online, the city of Sand Springs, Oklahoma wants to replace three churches and other private property with a new super center. The last time that I checked, super centers are commercial property, not public property.
It would be a violation of the state constitution to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial use. Thus, if the city of Sand Springs wishes to acquire private property for commercial use, then the city will have to acquire the property without using eminent domain – which is what the city of Sand Springs is trying to do.
The city isn’t using eminent domain because it would be illegal for the city to do so.
Heather Wilhelm, the author of the NRO story, has taken an attempted government purchase of church property, which is a fact, and turned it into an attempted use of eminent domain, which is fiction.
In a related matter, I was correct when I said that eminent domain would be a hot topic during the 2006 session of the Oklahoma Legislature. The Tulsa World reports that two members of the legislature have introduced bills aimed at limiting the use of eminent domain. The bills would define the term “public use” in a way that excludes private development for economic benefits.
Posted by Dodo David at January 27, 2006 09:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2107
Comments
You neglect the recent SCOTUS Kelo decision, in which eminent domain was extended to government taking for the purpose of increasing its monetary income. SCOTUS and government is RABID to hand pick property owners, contrary to our constitution. It is legal, bad as it may sound.
Posted by: Layer Seven at January 28, 2006 10:50 AM
RE: Kelo v. City of New London
In its majority opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court states, "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."
In other words, individual states can outlaw the way that the city of New London is using eminent domain.
Posted by: Dodo David at January 28, 2006 11:58 AM
I think Oklahoma is considering such measures, but that won't protect Oklahomans who own property in other states. SCOTUS is DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT with the constitution of the United States. Private property rights are placed seriously in jeopardy, like 1920 Russia.
Posted by: Layer Seven at January 28, 2006 04:11 PM
Supreme Court decisions do not and can not limit rights of citizens recognized in their stte constitution against state interference. C'mon guys, that's junior high school civics.
The web site that originated this story is a hoax site.
Posted by: paul at January 28, 2006 11:33 PM