It seems like when anyone discusses the election it's all about whether the Democrats will take the House, or speculation on the weird independent candidacies in Texas and Connecticut, or the latest dirty trick or 'October Surprise'. But there's an undercurrent all over the nation of very unhappy voters who are tired of being screwed by a government that has no regard for their needs and their rights. Voters are ready to hold both parties accountable for their greed, arrogance and complacency.
Issues like sending suggestive email to pages play big in the media, but don't mean much to voters except as sources of amusement and derision. Voters are much more likely to be seriously influenced by issues which impact them personally and directly, particularly economic policies and individual rights issues where they can see the potential for direct harm coming to them and have examples of those policies harming other people who they can relate to.
One way that voter discontent is being manifested strongly this year is through ballot initiatives. Many states put certain types of legislation up for a popular vote after passing the legislature and some states which let voters take lawmaking into their own hands by letting them petition to put issues on the ballot for a popular vote bypassing lawmakers altogether. One issue which appears on a dozen state ballots this year is protection for citizens against unreasonable eminent domain property seizures.
In the wake of the controversial decision from the Supreme Court in Kelo vs. New London, a nationwide movement has developed spearheaded by groups like the Castle Coalition to pass 'castle' laws which will protect citizens from having their property seized by state or local government under the principle of eminent domain, particularly when it is being used for the purpose of releasing that property to private developers as was done in the Kelo case. This problem has become increasingly widespread as county and city governments work hand in hand with real estate developers and reach corrupt deals where the government takes away property and then makes it available to developers in the interest of lining their own pockets or promoting the 'right kind' of development, with no heed paid to the rights and welfare of property owners.
Twenty-nine states have passed some sort of eminent domain rights protection laws which range in effectiveness from relatively weak statutes which grant all sorts of exceptions for favored development programs to stronger measures which ban eminent domain seizures for any purpose other than vital government need - what the framers of the federal Constitution and most of the state constitutions clearly intended.
Article comments
1 - steve
This issue really hits home for me as I am from Connecticut. What happened to life, liberty, and property? John Locke would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what was going on right now!
2 - Dave Nalle
You're certainly on the leading edge, Steve. But the frightening thing is that even before the Kelo decision it was happening EVERYWHERE. Kelo just legitimized what was already going on.
This partnership between leftist city governments with social engineering agendas to redesign their cities with 'smart growth' and the developers who finance their campaigns is one of the biggest political threats facing our nation. It's also another case of people on the left abusing and taking advantage of the poor and disenfranchised to advance their own interests. As they did in New London, their objective is to make a 'better' city, and if that means squeezing out the old and the poor so they can tear down their houses to build condos so yuppies won't have to commute - and line their pockets in the process - then to hell with those downtrodden citizens.
The question is when the poor and minorities and historic urban dwellers are going to wake the hell up and realize that the left is like a giant leech feeding off of them and victimizing them without mercy.
Dave
3 - JR
Dave Nalle: This partnership between leftist city governments with social engineering agendas to redesign their cities with 'smart growth' and the developers who finance their campaigns is one of the biggest political threats facing our nation.
Whoa, you just lost me.
Taking homes merely to hand them over to developers who wave more cash at municipal gevernments is truly dispicable. But "smart growth" initiatives, such as limiting development in the exurbs and placing restrictions on developers so that cities grow in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, are just good policy. Cities that grow out of control will be sorry when the price of gas really goes up.
4 - Adam Ash
This is just so fucked, Dave, I'm glad you wrote about it. I can't imagine anything so anti-American as to take away a person's property for some "development." I don't think it has much to do with leftists, though, it's just straight-up goddam greed. I wouldn't be surprised if there are all sorts of pay-offs involved. It sure makes the blood boil.
Adam
5 - Bliffle
What happened Dave? Is your house on the route of a freeway development?
6 - Dave Nalle
But "smart growth" initiatives, such as limiting development in the exurbs and placing restrictions on developers so that cities grow in an economically and environmentally sustainable way, are just good policy. Cities that grow out of control will be sorry when the price of gas really goes up.
Yes, I understand how smart growth is supposed to work, and it's not necessarily a bad idea if undertaken through legitimate means. But what I've observed in Austin, and it seems to be corroborated by similar situations all over the country, including Kelo, is that an urban elite who are mostly Democrats are running the cities, and the way they've found to make smart growth work is to increase population density by razing older, poor neighborhoods for condo development. This fits the smart growth mandate because it's a way of bringing the yuppies in from the exurbs and putting them in high-density condos instead.
This benefits the developers with government connections, but it replaces the exurbs with sprawling rural slums and low-cost suburban development which are going to be a problem in the not too distant future.
Dave
7 - Alec
While I sympathize with your area's local initiative issue, here in California, the initiative process is severely flawed, and has become a tool of pernicious special interests. In a recent past election, there was even an initiative where a "Yes" vote was really a no vote to a good and effective law. There have been multiple initiatives on the same area, where voting against one might activate the other.
Another recent initiatve would have voted funds for schools and guraranteed citizen oversight, but when it passed the school board declared that they could spend the money any way they wished, and declared that citizen boards only had a right to get regular updates about spending, not oversight control over disbursement. Note that this initiative was even endorsed by the biggest newspapers in the state, who were assured by school board officials that spending controls were air-tight.
Currently in California, there is an initiative that would add $2.60 to the price of a pack of cigarettes, suposedly to deter kids from smoking. While I guess this might be a good idea, the ballot measure is amazingly vague about where the revenue raised will be spent.
I still favor ballot initiatives, but totally reject the simple notion that they somehow magically reflect the unsullied will of the people.
8 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Alec. We have the same problem here in Texas. A lot of the things which get on the ballot are represented there only by a short summary which is often quite misleading. Sometimes voting for one will produce the exact opposite of what you expect.
But I think that this little bit of electoral deception is a separate issue from what I was writing about in the article for the most part; There are still genuine, popular issues represented on ballots, and the push for eminent domain reform is a prime example.
Dave
9 - steve
Dave,
Nearly every summer I manage to get down to Ocean Beach Park in New London. At one time; New London was a great little oceanside city. Now it is a site of major urban decay. It is a strongly democratic town with Lamont having a cult-like following.
One of my strong qualities is when I can admit when I am wrong. I initially thought the GOP were behind the eminant domain issue...I did a little research and had similar findings to yours. Democratic seats in that town/city pushed this to go through. I just cant understand why poor people cant see that democrats are out to KEEP THEM POOR and LINE THEIR pockets with OUR TAX MONEY. They laugh all the way to the bank!
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, in the article and in your comment above, you just wrote an accurate description of what we knew in New York as "Reform Democrats", the reason I joined the Republican party in the first place.
These guys are neither left nor right - there is no real "left" in America. They're just thieves who are not part of the oil and banking establishment and who are therefore looking for another way to steal money.
When I started to run into these schmucks in a big way in the DFL in Minnesota, I ran away from them.
11 - Arch Conservative
"This is just so fucked, Dave, I'm glad you wrote about it. I can't imagine anything so anti-American as to take away a person's property for some "development." I don't think it has much to do with leftists, though, it's just straight-up goddam greed."
Well when it came to the supreme court deciding Kelo vs. New London it certainly had to do with leftists and not greed. I doubt that the left wing justices who sided against Kelo benefitted financially from this case. Rather they were of the mindset that government has the right to seize private property for the purpose of the community good. Typical leftist fare........the good of the many and the right of the state to intervene through social engineering outweighs the rights of the individual
And here you are Adam ranting and raving 24-7 about George Bush taking away our rights when this is a pretty clear cut example of your leftist ilk doing this very thing in a moire tangible way than you can show George Bush has done it. Now don't you feel silly Adam?
12 - Dave Nalle
Arch, to be fair, when it came to the SC it wasn't left vs. right, but rather strong government vs. weak government, because the Bush-appointed strong government conservatives sided with the strong government leftists on the court in the vote.
Don't be mistaken, even though this eminent domain issue is an abuse of left-leaning state and local government, there are an unfortunately large number of people on the right these days who also believe in an allpowerful, unquestioned government.
Dave
13 - Alec
Dave - RE: There are still genuine, popular issues represented on ballots, and the push for eminent domain reform is a prime example.
In the November California election, there is an eminent domain initiative on the ballot, Proposition 90, but it is not a populist or local issue at all, but part of a concerted attempt by libertarians to enforce their vision of property by hook or by crook. Note that I have some sympathy with some libertarian positions, but I don’t see that philosophy as precisely synonymous with democracy or American values.
The proposition would not simply protect property rights, but possibly make it prohibitively expensive for many public works programs to executed because it would require that property owners not just be paid fair market value for their seized property, but would base their compensation on estimates of the future increased value of the property. Also, the proposed law would make it easier to mount court challenges based on minor zoning law changes.
Proponents of the ballot initiative claim that this is an over-reaction, but since a similar measure was approved in Oregon, property owners have filed 40,000 lawsuits against local governments, paralyzing the planning process.
In addition, recent news stories out here note the following:
Although Proposition 90 officials said about 6,000 people have made small donations in recent months, they acknowledged that most of the campaign's big ones were arranged by New York businessman and real estate entrepreneur Howard S. Rich, a onetime Libertarian Party activist who owns a plumbing company and numerous properties in New York.
The Fund for Democracy, which sponsored the measure and which Rich heads, donated $1.5 million. Chicago-based Americans for Limited Government, of which Rich is board chairman, gave $1 million. And Club for Growth State Action, a Chicago group on which Rich serves on the leadership council, gave $220,000. (Unlike candidate contests, there are no spending limits for California initiatives.)
An additional $600,000 came from Montanans in Action, which has largely financed three Nov. 7 initiatives in that state. All were tossed out recently by a judge who concluded that paid, out-of-state signature collectors engaged in fraud â€" but backers are appealing.
14 - Bliffle
I think Dave Nalle just found his house is on the new freeway map.
15 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, I'm actually lucky enough to be about two miles from the new freeway they're building here. But I do know people who lost their family farm to one freeway development, bought another smaller farm and lost it to an eminent domain seizure by the city whose ETJ they were in and then took that money and bought a still smaller farm which now looks like it's going to be in the right of way of a new toll road. So they're going to be screwed three times.
And the way it works, they get paid based on the tax evaluation of their property which runs about 5 years behind the real value, so they get at most 80 cents on the dollar of what it's really worth, and then have to go buy a new house at current market prices which are much higher. So the government takes the main thing which most people invest their earnings in and gives them less than its worth and they then have to go buy new housing at a higher price, costing them even more of that hard saved money. What you do is take middle class people who are surviving and have put something away and grind them down into poverty.
Dave
16 - JustOneMan
JR- I live in New Jersey "smart growth" is a left wing code word in this state for Democratic Corruption...Every municipality who claims to have a smart growth plan is overrun by big box stores and tract housing...while the local polticians and planning boards feed the Dumbcratic machine...
17 - Gina Weiss
You hit the nail on the head with this article, Dave. WELL SAID and needed to be said.
Listen up, people! Take back control of your life and your rights from politicians and bureaucrats who don't really give a damn what happens to you!
18 - Bennie
This could very well be one of the most important decisions that I make.
I do not want to give the government the right to take away my home for their gain.
I will vote yes on Question 2.
19 - Lumpy
What's question #2 and what state are u in?
20 - Lumpy
Apparently a complex imponderable, but at least it's good to see people voting.
I wonder how those who turn out to vote for ballot initiatives will vote whwn it comes to the various candidates for office.