Unfettered Letters

‘Socialism’ and eminent domain

Aerik Knapp-Loomis (11/15, Letters) blames conservative politicians for doing nothing to stop eminent domain, which he calls a form of “socialism.”

It was the “socialist” members of the Supreme Court (John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) who voted in June 2005 to allow local governments to force property owners to sell and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.

Because of this decision — conservatives William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor voted against it — conservative politicians have been barred from doing anything to protect private property.

Thus, they need not forever hold their “hypocritical tongues.”

Rex Hargis
Shawnee

Another form of ‘socialism’

To all the letter writers who whine about “socialism,” I must remind you about a little something called eminent domain. Remember that? The government can take your property as long as they can give it to somebody richer than you.

Isn’t that a form of socialism? The government redistributing wealth arbitrarily? And haven’t Republicans done pretty much squat about it? The best President Bush could do is sign a statement that limited it kinda, sorta, maybe. Pretty pathetic.

Get your conservative politicians to do something real about it, or forever hold your hypocritical tongues.

Aerik Knapp-Loomis
Shawnee

Property rights

Monday is the third anniversary of a the Kelo Supreme Court decision that , which weakened our property rights and made it constitutional for local governments to take one’s private property and give it to another private entity.

Property rights are the cornerstone of all the rest of our liberties. If government can take our property from us for the economic benefit of others, the rest of our rights are meaningless. For instance, what good is my free speech if government can deprive me of my chosen shelter or my place of business?

The press, which is extremely sensitive to its constitutional rights, has accepted the Kelo decision with shortsighted complacency. Why?

Robert Kobler
Bonner Springs

Unfortunately, as good as it may sound to open up more oil-producing areas, anyone with any sense could tell you that the price of gas isn’t going down.

The only result will be bigger profits for the oil corporations and futures marketers who already own all the marbles in this game.

These robber barons have overused and abused the so called “free market” system, and have managed to dismiss or vilify anyone who speaks out against them.

The last time I walked the beaches of Texas I had to scrub oil off my legs and feet. This, and so many other reasons, argue for keeping a ban on off-shore drilling.

But since I don’t have the money or resources to sway the powers that be, I can only voice my opinions and vote my belief that if we’re ever to see an end to this lunacy, we’ll all have to do it from the ground up.

Jess Hall
Lenexa

Eminent domain

Regarding The Star’s article “Eminent domain battle is civil rights issue” (4/28, Opinion): Property rights are not just a civil rights issue. Property rights issues affect everyone. There are many examples in the Kansas City area.

Loch Lloyd annexed an area that voted against the annexation. Belton took a privately owned farm so a home improvement store could be built. A neighborhood was blighted so that the Kansas Speedway could be built. Without a vote, Overland Park annexed a large area. Stilwell does not have a say about its future.

Individual property rights must be strengthened. Nature is not blight. Contact your elected officials about these issues.

George Fowler
Kansas City

Eminent domain

In a recent op-ed piece, Nicholas Loyal took the Missouri Supreme Court to task for its decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, (“Court’s ruling threatens Missouri property rights,” 4/8). It is a fine piece of political rhetoric, it completely misses the mark as a critique of a judicial opinion.

He objects to the court’s failure to strike a blow for property rights in a TIF project. But that case presented no opportunity for the court to do so. The redevelopment statutes were adopted by the general assembly, and the court was merely construing their application to a third-class city.

The issue was a narrow one: Did the State Constitution authorize the General Assembly to grant eminent domain powers to third class cities, such as Arnold, and had it done so?

These questions were not completely free from doubt, but the court’s decision was certainly a reasonable and plausible construction of the constitution and relevant statutes, and it was entirely consistent with prior cases. To criticize it for failing to decide issues that were not before it, on theories that were not argued to it, is simply silly.

Dale Whitman
Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Missouri
Columbia

Eminent domain

May I suggest to the residents of Sugar Creek whose homes and businesses are threatened by a proposed commercial development (7/8, Local, "Loophole threatens homes; In Missouri, a neighborhood can be declared blighted if a 'preponderance' of houses meets the definition") that they initiate a recall movement against that city's entire Board of Aldermen?

The blight of eminent domain will only stop when politicians pay with their jobs for even suggesting it.

Patrick McWilliams
Edwardsville

Eminent domain law

In “Kansas’ new eminent domain law worries local governments” (7/2, Local), the beneficiaries of eminent domain abuse bemoan the state’s new restrictions as a roadblock to revitalization. Claims that the law will thwart attempts to condemn truly blighted property are categorically false.

Municipalities can still seize properties that are “unsafe for occupation by humans” under building codes. But the law no longer permits tax-hungry governments to declare perfectly fine homes and businesses “blighted” in order to condemn them for politically connected developers. This has clearly fueled their ire.

LaVert Murray, the Unified Government’s development director, even has the gall to say that the threat of condemnation can “persuade property owners to negotiate more fairly.” But as any official knows, that threat gives the government the upper hand and is used to bully property owners into bowing to public force and selling against their will.

Homeowners and small business owners have suffered for far too long under Kansas’ formerly broad definition of “blight.” Property owners should ignore the self-interested fretting of the abusers of eminent domain and be confident that in the Sunflower State, a person’s home is his castle.

Christina Walsh
Castle Coalition coordinator
Institute for Justice
Arlington, Va.

Indian Springs mall

The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution speak directly to the rights of Americans to own private property.

The Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall be …deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” That right is reinforced in the Fourteenth Amendment.

I wonder whether members of Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan., have ever read the Constitution, much less taken its very good advice.

Arrogant action in seizing my family’s private property at the Indian Springs shopping center for the benefit of other private owners flies in the face of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I find it ironic that the Unified Government commission unanimously approved a zoning change several months ago that would have allowed a business park. Now that same government wants to destroy Indian Springs.

My family lost its private property to an oppressive government in Iran. We fled to the United States and became citizens only to find another government abusing private property rights in seizing our enclosed mall, without due process of law and offering very unjust compensation.

Joseph Kashani
Panorama City, Calif.

Editor’s note: The Unified Government took possession of Indian Springs mall on Friday. Kashani is a principal of former owner Kansas City Mall Associates.

Business not treated fairly

My husband owns a small retail business in downtown Olathe. A few years ago, Olathe and Johnson County began a “beautification” project for downtown. In addition to making adjustments necessary to be a viable county seat, increasing downtown retail was part of the plan.

My husband was told that “in the future” his building would be demolished to make room for a parking lot. He was not given information as to where he might relocate and what help he could expect.

The building is owned by his parents. The rent is a large source of their retirement and is less than we would pay elsewhere, making our business profitable. The offers from the city to his parents for this building have been insulting and nowhere near what the replacement cost would be.

Depending on money available, we have tentative plans to build in Olathe but are practically being “priced out” with all the new zoning requirements.

This business has always paid its share of taxes. We hire people full time and pay an actual living wage, yet we are barely acknowledged, let alone treated fairly and made to feel welcome in a city our business has been part of for more than 40 years.

K. Alexander
Olathe

Eminent domain

The eminent-domain reform legislation recently signed into law by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt was the result of extensive deliberation and debate. In the end, it included 16 out of 18 recommendations made by the nine-member eminent domain task force appointed by the governor last summer.

It reflected many, many hours and pages of public testimony and comments presented to the task force, legislative committees and individual policy-makers, many of whom have worked tirelessly with Missouri Farm Bureau to pass eminent domain reform legislation since 2002.

In its ruling on eminent domain last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly affirmed states’ authority to restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer private property from one owner to another. Missouri’s new law does this and more.

The new law cracks down on the abuse of blight in several ways, but Ron Calzone (7/21, As I See It) contends that only a constitutional amendment can effectively address blight. We respectfully disagree.

Unfortunately, not even a constitutional amendment would keep every public official from ever abusing the power to condemn blighted property. But this law makes it much more difficult.

Moreover, voters have the ultimate power to remove those who abuse power from office. In several communities where blight is an issue, voters have done just that.

Charles E. Kruse
President, Missouri Farm Bureau Federation
Jefferson City