OGDEN - The City Council will consider adopting a wish list tonight that it hopes the Utah Legislature will tackle during its 2007 session to address transportation funding and eminent domain, among other issues.That's right, folks. Boss Godfrey has been pining over the opportunity to get back into the property condemnation business. Draconian public projects require draconian government powers, and the uber-draconian Boss Godfrey craves as much of the latter as he can get.
Word on the legislative street is that neoCON State Senator Scott Jenkins (Godfrey's cousin, believe it or not) will be carrying the eminent domain ball in the legislature this year. Jenkins has been on the public stump recently, touting the sheer wonderfulness of the power of eminent domain loudly and often. Senator Jenkins' bill, we're told, would look something like the bill that's on tonight's council wish-list:
The city wants a threshold of "receptiveness" that requires at least two-thirds of property owners representing at least half of the land area to either be under an option to buy or willing to sell before eminent domain can be used to obtain remaining hold-out parcels.That's some improvement, we say. Instead of having one little twerp on the city hall ninth floor making decisions to condemn your private property for transfer to some fat-cat developer, Godfrey, Jenkins and their neoCON ilk would turn the decision over to two-thirds of your caring neighbors.
Among other stories that's been making the rounds in the Weber County luncheon circuit is that Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble is onboard with the Godfrey/Jenkins' neoCON eminent domain revival. We actually heard this same meme over the phone this morning, from one of our otherwise-astute Emerald City councilmembers.
Being the curious and skeptical type, we called Curt Bramble, who was happy to give us the "straight skinny."
And here's what Senator Bramble told us:
"Yes," he will support a limited return to RDA-empowered eminent domain. He said he'd even co-sponsor "the right bill," in the event that Senator Jenkins (or anybody else) can come up with something reasonably compatible with traditional American property rights concepts. He explained to us his threshold for support, and it goes like this:
1) Any new legislation would have to be aimed at correcting "true blight;" and Senator Bramble would insist on extremely strict standards.
2) He would embrace the "threshold of 'receptiveness'" concept but the numbers would conform to a 90% standard, according to these three factors common to an eminent domain target area:
Residential properties:
- The relative number of property owners;
- The relative percentage of property acreage, and;
- The relative gross fair market value of property interests.
Yeah. we guess you might say that even Curt Bramble is onboard the eminent domain bandwagon -- in a VERY limited sense.
As Senator Bramble told us, he'd create a "high bar" to the use of eminent domain in the future; and we agree with him on this. Applying these standards in the real world, we think very few overly-ambitious land-grabs would succeed.
So what about it, gentle readers? Do any of you now consider Senator Bramble to be a private property rights sell-out? (We don't.)
And what about the other items on the mayor's laundry list? It would be interesting to hear our gentle readers' own analysis; and we thus open the floor for comment.
15 comments:
Although I am not a big fan of how Mayor Godfrey and others have attempted to use (and abuse) Eminent Domain powers in the past, I do feel Eminent Domain is an important Local Government tool that should not be limited by the self-serving politicians in our State Legislature. We need to take another look at Eminent Domain and maybe refocus on its original intent and get back to what indeed is a PUBLIC USE—which our State Legislature has not done. Once again I don’t like the idea of Ogden City being able to take private land to further a Wal-Mart or some other lame use, but I don’t exactly trust our State Legislature deciding how cities should use Eminent Domain either. Eminent Domain has its proper place in city development and redevelopment, let's not restrict that.
June:
The legislature's ban last year on eminent domain powers for cities in no way affects the cities right to use it for public projects like roads, schools, damsites, drainage projects, etc. It applied only to cities using eminent domain powers for the benefit of private owners [e.g. using eminent domain powers to assemble a parcel of land to attract say Wal-Mart to the city]. The traditional uses of eminent domain powers which you mentioned were in no way limited by the recent legislative action.
Rudi:
Two points. You wrote: The Std-Ex is labeling it a city council wish list actually; but we already know who controls the city council agenda, don't we? (Helpful hint: NOT the city council.) I presume you are implying that the Mayor controls the Council. Seems to me that Council actions over the previous year have made it pretty clear that he does not. The Council it seems to me has displayed a comendable committment [finally] to the idea that it has a significant and independent oversight responsibility vis-a-vis the administration. Two years ago I think you might reasonably have argued that we had in effect a rubber-stamp Council. I think that, on the evidence, that argument can no longer be made.
In re: Sen. Bramble, you asked So what about it, gentle readers? Do any of you now consider Senator Bramble to be a private property rights sell-out? (We don't.) First, "sell out" implies that Sen. Bramble was a more strident opponent of the use of eminent domain powers for the benefit of private development in the past and has now "sold out" his former position. I don't know enough about his former position on the matter to even hazard a guess as to whether the sell out charge is valid or not.
However, my opposition to even the limited eminent domain for private development powers he would support [and his standards are better than Jenkins' on this matter]is pretty much based on philosophical grounds: it is wrong, always, to take by force anyone's private property in order to benefit some other private owner. It is wrong even if 90$% of the owners of 90% of the land in the area involved want to sell out. An owner's right to his property should not be eliminated by force against his will for the benefit of another private onwer. Ever. Period.
Yes, I know the higher bar Senator's Jenkins [and the even higher one's Sen. Bramble] want to errect are an improvement over the virtually unchecked powers of cities to sieze private property for the benefit of other private owners that existed before. But we need to remember the two gentlemen, and the majority in both houses in Utah, consist of Republicans who have a demonstrated record of rolling over, repeatedly, begging to have their bellies rubbed like lapdogs by developers and large corportations [aka major campaign contributors]. They have a history, Rudi, and it's one that does not engender much confidence that, once the barn door is opened even a crack, once the loophole is established, the Mayor Godfrey's of the state and their real estate scheme chronies will not find ways to drive far more through it than anticipated.
But even if the Republican Senators and the legislature as a whole, can be presumed to be acting in good faith and with full honesty and perfect integrity on this matter [I know, I know, but for the sake of argument, I'm willing to presume that], the revisions would still permit violating the rights of up to 10% of the owners in any tract the city wanted to acquire for other private developers. And that is plain and simple wrong.
Putting lipstick on this pig -- public seizure by eminient domain power for private development --- won't make it any more attractive, no matter how many Republican state senators and representatives tug their forlocks to the big-contributor developers and vote for it. Wrong is wrong.
I was given a bit of information today that the informant says is the reason Senator Jenkins is for the old use of eminent domain.
This interesting bit of information is that Senator Jenkins is Mayor Godfrey's uncle.
If this is true then it seems we have a form of political incest going since the head of the Planning Department is also Godfrey's uncle..
Will the persons who know the geneaology please set the record straight if it needs to be straigtened???
I am quite surprised that Scott Jenkins would sponsor any more bills that the Godfrey clan wants after the ass beating he got last year.
Hear it is. http://www.familysearch.org/
Well, MS Dorothy...'incest' in that Montgomery AND Jenkins appear to share the same DNA as Godfrey and are shring the same bed.
Nepotism?
Incest? Whatever..the rest of are getting screwed!
When I'm screwed, I like to be kissed first.
BTW...I was told the same information.
Seems to me the issue is not who is related to who, but what the Senator is proposing. Would it be any better, less unwise, if the proposal was coming from someone in no way related to anyone in Ogden? I don't think so. Who's related to who and in what degree seems to me to be pretty much beside the point. The problem, if you think it's a problem as I do, is what is being proposed, not who is proposing it.
Ill-informed Supreme Court rulings
not withstanding (even ones showing no backbone whatsoever), private land may NOT be taken for any purpose OTHER than PUBLIC USE (ie, roads, schools, etc..)....PERIOD!!
It is unfortunate that Senator Bramble has seen fit to now sell out.
Do I consider Senator Bramble to be a sellout? I can see it no other way!
"a high bar"..tight standards...and just which bureaucratic committee will determine "true blight"???
Will a new bureaucracy be appointed to determine 'blight"?
The eminent domain that Godfrey is pushing doesn't appear to be for the public good, such as roads, infrastructure, etc. It's for commercial/residential development.
I'm very wary.
Please stop picking on my cousins-uncles-brothers-dad who is also my wife.
Senator Jenkins is the ultimate lightweight in what is undoubtedly the airiest bunch of fat, soda-guzzling idiots in the state (Legislature). Even with Bramble's tacit support of eminent domain for commercial gain with innumerable strictures, look for this bill to go nowhere. Valentine will not shove it back in the face of those who passed it, as Mansell may have done. It won't get out of rules, if it even gets there.
SB229 was also going to be held up n 'rules'.
riiiight.
ko ko ko
New comments are not allowed.