Two Democrats running for a Howard County Council seat support the use of eminent domain for private property in certain situations, while the sole Republican candidate is apprehensive about its usage.
Democrat Adam Sachs, a candidate for the District 2 seat, said eminent domain could help the County Council purchase property along downtrodden parts of Route 1 in Elkridge, Jessup and Savage for revitalization.
Still, “it should be used sparingly,” he said at Thursday?s District 2 candidate forum at the East Columbia Library.
“But there could be some benefit, if it?s just vacant lots or abandoned buildings.”
Incumbent Democrat Calvin Ball said he didn?t like the idea of seizing a citizen?s property to give to a business interest, but that the council shouldn?t rule out using any options at its disposal.
“In the event that we haven?t planned properly or there is some massive rezoning that goes on, that?s a possible tool,” Ball said Sunday.
Republican Gina Ellrich, who did not attend the forum because she had another event that night, said Sunday that she would be leery of seizing private property for economic development.
“I think there?s nothing wrong with revitalizing our community,” she said. “But I do have a problem to allow the government to take people?s property for less than market value. I would not be in favor of that. People should be able to sell their property if they want or not sell their property.”
In February, State Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-District 9, who represents Howard and Carroll counties, proposed a bill that would have allowed voters to decide whether it should be unlawful for local jurisdictions to condemn private property for use by other private citizens or for economic development.
The proposal never made it out of the Senate?s Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Kittleman said Sunday that he was disquieted to hear Ball and Sachs advocate for some use of eminent domain.
“What?s happened to our freedom?” he said. “If there?s a public harm, such as rats or something like that, the government should force you to fix that. They shouldn?t take your property and give it to somebody else.”
The forum was sponsored by local political advocacy group RestoreUS.org.
Precedent case
Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court?s 5-4 decision on the controversial case of Kelo v. New London gave authority for local governments to seize private citizens? land for economic revitalization programs.
