Eminent domain appeared in the presidential campaign recently when Sen. John McCain addressed the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision. In a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, McCain called Kelo “one of the most alarming reductions of freedom in our lifetimes.” In the course of defending property rights, McCain promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would take the Constitution seriously and said he might “seek to amend the Constitution to protect private property rights in America.”
To those who follow the issue, it was bracing stuff. The questions of how and when property may be taken for public use–and what constitutes just compensation when property is taken–are vital but technical. It’s a rare day when they make their way into a politician’s stump speech. The only hiccup came afterwards. In an interview with Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff, McCain pointed to Iowa as a good example of how states can and should respond to the Kelo decision. In reality, Iowa is a good example of how slippery eminent domain reform can be.
With its 5-4 Kelo decision, the High Court blessed the bad habit local governments have of seizing property from one private owner (think home-owners without political clout) and giving it to another private owner (think downtown real estate developer). The ostensible public purpose that provides the constitutional fig-leaf for such seizures is usually eliminating “blight” (which is in the eye of the beholder) and goosing tax revenues.
At the time of Kelo, Iowa had no special protections for property rights, but the decision prodded the state legislature. In the spring of 2006, it overwhelmingly passed a reform to prohibit takings for the sole purpose of increasing the tax base. But Democratic governor Tom Vilsack unexpectedly vetoed the bill. The legislature returned in a special session and overrode the governor’s veto, 90-8.
The new legislation strengthened property rights in Iowa, but did not settle the issue altogether. There are the usual fights; in Des Moines, Brad Hamilton bought two boarded up–blighted–buildings five years ago. He renovated them and turned them into two businesses, a record store and a T‑shirt printing shop. The city wants to condemn his land and use it for private development.
Then there’s the case of Maharishi Vedic City (population 420), a town founded in 2001 by followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Transcendental Meditation guru. The city government named Sanskrit the official language, adopted the use of an alternative currency (the Raam Mudra), and banned the sale of any food not grown organically. Bob Palm owns a 149-acre farm on Vedic’s border. When he and his brothers began toying with the idea of building a hog farm on their land, the Vedic city council made noises about seizing the farm and turning it into a public park because, as the city’s attorney told the Associated Press, “It would be a very difficult situation for the city if a hog confinement is built on its boundaries.” The city has drafted a proposal to buy the farm and “if that plan fails, they expect to use eminent domain to force the sale of Palm’s land.”
The biggest eminent domain issue in Iowa is one specifically left open in the reform–the creation of artificial lakes. Across the state, but particularly in southern Iowa, municipalities have undertaken projects to create lakes. The new law provides that “If private property is to be condemned for development or creation of a lake, only that number of acres justified as necessary for a surface drinking water source, and not otherwise acquired, may be condemned.”
But shenanigans abound. The 1,800-acre West Tarkio Lake project near Shenandoah, in Page County, is a striking example. A March 2006 exposé in the Des Moines City View detailed how, in 2001, Shenandoah officials began campaigning for a new lake on the grounds that it would provide an important water source for the county. As part of their initial research for the project, the town hired a well digging company and a laboratory to see if they could find alternative water sources underground. They did–the results showed a huge supply of safe water. But city officials never disclosed the existence of these documents. An anonymous tipster told a local citizens group about them, and when the group requested copies of the report, the city claimed they didn’t exist. Only after the group hired a lawyer did the city produce the reports.
Sometimes the law does work. Near the town of Peru, the Madison County Lake Commission had been pushing for the creation of a lake since 2004 on the grounds that it would provide a valuable water source. They proposed a massive 2,500 acre body of water, displacing some 40 landowners. However, the project presented some interesting footnotes: 2,500 acres was much bigger than could possibly have been needed for drinking water. And then there was Doug Gross, a member of the Madison County Lake Commission. Gross was the Republican candidate for governor who lost a bitter 2002 race to Tom Vilsack. Yet he would go on to become Vilsack’s key ally in fighting against eminent domain reform. Incidentally, Gross owned three parcels of land that would have become waterfront property had the project proceeded as planned. But after the eminent domain reform was passed, the county scaled the project down to between 400 and 500 acres and moved it to an area where only 17 landowners–and probably no homes–will be affected.
There are other weaknesses in Iowa’s reform: For instance, while the law requires that municipalities demonstrate that 75 percent of a designated redevelopment zone be proven “blighted” in order to condemn the entire area, that still means that many non-blighted properties can be condemned in the name of redevelopment.
Iowa’s eminent domain reform is better than nothing. But it probably isn’t the model to which the rest of the country should aspire. Nearby South Dakota has passed a reform that flatly prohibits the use of eminent domain to force any transfer of land from one private individual or entity to another. And in Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush signed legislation before leaving office that forces towns to wait 10 years before transferring land acquired by eminent domain to private developers. McCain deserves credit for bringing property rights to the presidential campaign. Perhaps if his campaign lasts long enough, he will have the chance to tout better reforms than Iowa’s.
Jonathan V. Last is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
