« Heat Death | Main | Where's the Opening? »
June 23, 2005
Suburban inroads
Democrats just don't get many votes from homeowners. There are a number of theories and reasons why and if you're interested you can read plenty about the causes elsewhere. But in light of the Supreme Court ruling today (unfortunately penned by the court's liberal members + Justice Kennedy) that paves the way (literally) for local governments to use eminent domain to condemn private property under a very tenuous definition of public use (if new development will yield higher tax revenue), the issue goose has just laid a golden egg in the laps of Democrats, if they'll run with it.
Property rights in much of this country are under attack from two sources -- the government, in the form of eminent domain and a renewed push for government secrecy on all levels and on all subjects since 9/11, and from quasi-governmental homeowners associations. The less desirable your property, the more the threat to your liberty comes from the government, the more desirable your property, the more likely it is that you are under the tyranny of some homeowner's association.
Democrats in Georgia should push for 3 constitutional amendments: A first one that prevents local governments from secretly negotiating with developers. Local governments argue that they can't be competitive with competing jurisdictions if they must disclose their negotations -- which is b.s. and code for "we wouldn't be able to locate this landfill next to this subdivision if the subdivision knew about it." Lt. Gov Mark Taylor and Democratic leaders in the legislature are already pushing for something exactly like this.
Next, push for a constitutional amendment that clearly defines what can and can't be done in the name of eminent domain. Utility right of way is acceptable, as is condemning property that is unlivable, or when a property owner's neglect is harmful to the community or to the tenants of the property. Swapping what's on the land for a new development because it will lead to higher tax revenues is not the job of government. If the market determines that there is a better use for someone's land than it's current use, then let the current owner be compensated accordingly. If tax revenues will increase by such a large amount that the local government wants to get involved, then the local government can kick in extra money to the current landowners to sweeten the deal. That should be the extent of government's involvement -- not interfering with the market to please a wealthy developer.
Finally, a constitutional amendment to define and reign in homeowner's associations. Most HOA's operate within the bounds of decency, but when one gets out of control it can ruin the lives of those that it stands in the way of. Historically, taxation issues have driven homeowners into the arms of the Republicans, but ultimately these homeowners have gotten litte out of the deal (except marginally lower taxes in some cases). As long as they don't feel Democrats offer them anything else that's worth a damn, they'll stick with the Republicans, even if the benefits are microscopic. A pro-property owner agenda that the Republicans will be against will go a long way towards reversing the terrible tide in the suburbs that turned Georgia red.
Posted by Chris at June 23, 2005 01:51 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)