Posted by
Loyal Democrat on Friday, May 11, 2007 4:04:13 PM
The flawed premise of the arguments utilized by the critics of widespread eminent domain usage is that land can be privately owned outside of the limitations set forth in the titles provided by government entities. The government has an interest in all land, as evidenced by the fact that property taxes are continuously levied. In essence, the so-called "owners" of the property are actually leasing the land from the government, and the property taxes serve as the rent. Since the government has ownership interests in all land and property, it is certainly within its power to dictate just who gets to utilize the space and how much they pay for that privilege.
Thus, while some might argue that it is improper for government to seize land from one party and give it to another in order to obtain a higher tax base, the reality is that such complainers should be thankful that any justification for the seizure is offered at all. Since government owns the land, there is really no reason as to why government agencies should be prevented from randomly taking any property that they might desire, and provide its use to an occupant that best serves the particular agency. By exercising that justifiable right, any government agency could use valuable land to persuade individuals or corporations to conduct themselves in a manner that pleases the government. By pleasing the government, the individual or corporation is in essence pleasing society, thus adding even more justification for the seizure. As such, all land could be converted into a means of serving society in the best way possible.
Along a similar vein, eminent domain should be extended in a manner that allows for a more reasonable distribution of desirable land. The public would be better served if hi-rise beachfront hotels were government owned because rental rates could be set so low that any person could even afford to stay in the penthouse suites. Likewise, it is unfair that key land in the downtown area is controlled by large corporations with deep pockets. There are many small businesses that would like to occupy prime space, so again, the public would be best served if such space was seized and made available to the little guy.
The only problem with the interpretation of the eminent domain laws is that such laws are limited to real property. A case can easily be made for similar equitable treatment of personal property. For instance, there are people that own several cars, while other citizens are forced to walk to work. The public would be better served if such property were seized from those that do not use it in a way that best serves society, and given to those that have better plans for the item in question.
However, to ground the recent arguments against the positions taken by local governments regarding eminent domain implementations, a simple solution is available. In order to circumvent the argument that a municipality will be better off if the property is seized and offered to another party that will convert the land to a higher tax producing purpose, all a current owner has to do is simply bid up what he is willing to pay in property taxes to the government. If a developer can bump the tax rate up to $5K per year, then property owner can bid $6K. If the developer then offers $7K, the owner can bid again. The result will be a maximization of revenue to the government, so the public purpose is served, and property owners that wish to retain their land have an opportunity to do so. This method is certainly fair, for rent in any form is subject to the price set by the owner, and if the government as the effective owner can get a higher rate, then it should be free to do so.