Loudoun Republicans against property rights?
By Norman Leahy | Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Policy, Politics, Virginia[Updated]
My sources in the General Assembly tell me that Sen. Dick Black is wavering on the property rights amendment set to come before the Privileges and Elections committee next Tuesday. Why would Black, a strong conservative, be conflicted on an issue like this? Pressure from home, and specifically, from the Republican-dominated Loudoun Board of Supervisors.
Back on January 3rd, the Board took up its list of bills to support and oppose in the current General Assembly session. Among the items — a proposal from staff to oppose the property rights constitutional amendment. According to the minutes (page 10), Supervisors Buona, Clarke, Higgins, Letourneau, Reid, Williams and York all voted “yes.” Supervisors Delgaudio and Volpe voted ‘no.”
So…a group of Republican officials votes overwhelmingly against the property rights amendment and they, in turn, pressure Sen. Black to oppose it in Richmond.
Here’s hoping that Sen. Black joins his colleagues in supporting the amendment. And for the folks back in Loudoun…they may want to ask themselves why their nominally Republican, allegedly conservative, Board members seem to feel that strengthening private property rights is the wrong thing to do.
Update:
I am told that Sen. Black “…certainly [will] support the bill,” which is very good news. How that will sit with the Loudoun BOS remains to be seen…
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
50 Responses to "Loudoun Republicans against property rights?"
Perhaps Senator Black realized that under the constitution of Virginia that has been in effect since 1776, a body of judicial decisions has been built up which help to define and interpret the statutes that implement the constitutional principles. The proposed amendment sweeps that away, and in its place, attempts to create new principles and new definitions, all of which will require judicial review, interpretation, and decision.
In fact, you will note that in the proposed amendment, public use is not even defined, and this amendment would require the plaintiff to prove that the proposed use of eminent domain is for public use, whatever that is.
Now this will throw the use of eminent domain for public use, a basic and revered part of both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia, into total disarray until that body of knowledge is determined. That process could take decades.
In my view, the use of eminent domain should be reserved for obtaining property, on behalf of the citizens of the jurisdiction, for specific public uses like public hospitals, buildings, parks, roads, highways, tunnels, and bridges, utility systems, libraries, schools, etc. I also support the use of eminent domain for the removal of blight subject to an approved redevelopment and conservation plan. Of course, you will note that I am simply referring to exactly the situation that exists now, so in my view, no amendment is required nor necessary.
Our founders balanced the right of ownership of private property, with the responsibility of the people, by their elected representatives, to provide the required infrastructure to support our chosen civil society. Frankly, Madison, Mason, et al. got it right. To me, the constitution does not need “improvement”, and further, the proposed amendment would curtail responsibilities of elected officials working in the public interest to support the interests of our citizens.
It is bad legislation and should not be passed.
Mike,
The current constitutional in effect in Virginia was adopted in 1971, not 1776.
This is primarily because the newly elected 9-0 Republican Loudoun Board of Supervisors was largely funded by builders and developers, who aren;t too keen on this. Black has received tons of builder and developer money as well, and that money train is more liekly to be influencing him more than the Supervisors, many of whom bow down before Black.
This is primarily because the newly elected 9-0 Republican Loudoun Board of Supervisors was largely funded by builders and developers, who aren’t too keen on this. Black has received tons of builder and developer money as well, and that money train is more likely to be influencing him more than the Supervisors, many of whom bow down before Black.
Comment function was acting up a bit!
[...] Norm Leahy at Bearing Drift is not too pleased with the Loudoun BOS and Dick Black for not supporting greater property rights protections against eminent domain in a post called Loudoun Republicans Against Property Rights?. [...]
During the rural zoning battles there was a group in Loudoun County called Citizens for Property Rights, that fought tooth and nail against downzoning, primarily funded by developers. Since most of those involved have cashed out and left town the group has fallen by the wayside. Right now there is a very controversial takings case whereby the Town of Purcellville is condemning land right through the middle of a popular pick your own farm and orchard. The Vice Chair of the new Board and her allies on the Purcellville Town Council are pushing this and trashing anyone who stands up for the Browns who own that farm. The road they are pushing is intimately tied in to development associated with Patrick Henry College. Somehow all those people so concerned about property rights when it pertained to downzoning have lost their voices when it comes to this takings matter.
So are builders and developers not allowed to express their opinion that this amendment will stop major transpprtation projects that stimulate quality growth and development? Is it the conservative and republican point of view that streets, highways, utility systems are not legitimate public uses? If so, the republican party, which used to be a bastion of support for economic and business development, has changed even more than I and others thought.
Perhaps business oriented republicans with a nexus to development, professionals like lawyers, bankers, mortgage brokers, realtors, real estate agents, accounts, financial advisors, stock brokers, appraisers, civil engineers, architects, professional land planners, and others, need to consider whether they are welcome in a Party and on Bearing Driuft that wants to curtail quality economic development in communities throughtout the Commonwealth.
One more bit of background info – the new Loudoun BOS is very much bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, one of the current members was a recent past Chairman of the Board of the Loudoun Chamber. They are dead set against this:
http://leesburg.patch.com/articles/nova-chamber-partnership-leads-charged-against-constitutional-amendment-on-eminent-domain
I am all for the responsible use of eminent domain for public use, but there are simply too many documented cases of abuse of the system at the expense of citizens who often cannot fight for themselves.
Wait a second insider, I am confused. You say that small businesses are the victims of eminent domain, yet chambers of commerce around the Commonwealth have joined together to oppose this amendment. So which is it? If small businesses in local chambers of commerce see the insidious effects of this amendment on their businesses, don’t they have the right and the obligation to speak truth to power?
Just because some far right libertarian legislators needed an issue to show how they can throw red meat to the far right does not mean they are right to propose this amendment.
Frankly, on its face, this bill is a budget buster, it is poorly crafted, it provides that commercial property owners would benefit at the expense of residential taxpayers, and it is an affront to James Madison and George Mason that their efforts need to be improved upon.
Fact is, they got it right. They balanced the need to protect property rights with the requirement that elected officials provide needed public infrastructure approved by the voters. This proposed amendment puts their formula out of balance and for the good of the community, it must be defeated.
The Loudoun Chamber is absolutely not dominated by small businesses, and the Browns who own the orchard in question are very much on the outs with the local powers that be.
So insider, you are saying that eminent domain should not be used to build local highways? Further, have you ever heard of a person who was pleased that their property was needed for a public project? Frankly, no amendment to the constitution is ever going to please those who want more money for their property that it is worth.
Looking at this from afar, in the Northern Neck, and not knowing the pitiful little Brown family in Loudoun County, nor being intimately familiar with all of the personalities at play, I have to say I agree with Mike Barret on this so-called “Property Rights” state constitutional amendment. If passed and approved by voters, it would be a real train-wreck and a shot in the foot.
If the BOS doesn’t get the private property by condemnation, they will get it by “down zoning” or “re-zoning”. The same thing is happening in York County by the “Republican” BOS which is going even further by adopting “Agenda 21” language their new zoning ordinances which are severely restricting what private property owners can do with their property. It’s interesting how declared Republicans become left wing Democrats when they get elected to a BOS and private property rights become an issue.
“the pitiful little Brown family”
Nice way to characterize a hard working wonderful couple.
If people do not have the right to live or do what they wish with their own property without big government coming in and stealing it, condemning it for whatever uses, we have no rights at all. If this does not pass, America- land of the free, home of the brave- is truly dead and whatever individual rights we all thought we had, we really do not.
Well actually Steve, that is not what the constitution says, nor should it. The framers were reacting to the authoritarian actions of the King who took what he wanted no matter what. But this nation was created as a republic, and elected officials were required to serve the public interest, not the interests of a monarch.
Accordingly, while the right to own private property was protected, the right of officials elected by the public to construct needed infrastructure that served the public interest was also protected. Hence, the framers understood the balance between property rights and the public interest.
The proposed amendment rejects the balance between property rights and the need of elected officials to respond to public needs for infrastructure. To that degree, it refutes the delicate balance respected by George Mason and James Madison. For that reason alone, it ought to be defeated.
Mike, what is the first thing that Socialists and Communists do when they take over a country, after they disarm the population? They take property in the name of the “public interest”. Stalin did it, Castro did it, Chavez did it, Kirchner is doing it, and the list goes on and on throughout history and the this insidious trend has spread to our country. I hope you realize that using revisionist interpretations of the Framers original intent doesn’t make your case because you have a dog in this fight, and the good statesmen of Virginia are going to send it back to the kennels.
@Loudoun Lady: I did write “the pitiful little Brown family” and your reply was
“Nice way to characterize a hard working wonderful couple.”
Sorry, Loudoun Lady. That is exactly how you first portrayed them, without adding any background to exactly and for what purpose the mean, evil, dirty, crooked and also REPUBLICAN BOS wants to run a road through the middle of their nice little garden. Give us the whole story, and maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about it.
This reminds of the continuous “anti Walmart” debacle in Orange County. Private property rights? Not if you are Walmart, apparently.
@ Tim J….you argument is ludicrous. This “insidious trend” is not something new. It’s established law. It isn’t “communist” or “socialist” and has nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin or Castro. Do you like driving on paved roads and highways? Do you like trains? Airlines? Airports? Telephones? Electricity? Water and sewer? Come on man, you can’t be this ignorant.
I am no “Lady” and this isn’t the space to rehash the entire story of Sam and Uta Brown’s battle against the Town of Purcellville. Google “Crooked Run Orchard” if you want more information. Loudoun is an absolute mess thanks to outrageous rates of residential growth with the highest tax rate in the state. Most of that happened on the watch of pro-growth at any costs Republicans. So much for smaller government and less taxes.
Kilby, obviously the “established law” isn’t working very well for a lot of us in your fantasy of utopian harmony as you apparently haven’t personally lost real estate or property through comdemnation and “down zoning” to a local government. Those of us and our families who have been screwed to the wall financially and legally attacked by commercial developers and their political shills may finally see some balance in your willful ignorance of the warped perversion of “established law”.
So Tim J, are you calling George Mason and James Madison socialists and communists? For rational posters, now you see the libertarians and right wing zealots who are pushing for this amendment. The constitution of the U.S. and the Virginia constitution provide a balance between property rights and the right of the majority, by vote of the people or their elected officials, to provide infrastructure like roads, bridges, canals, tunnels, buildings, etc. that are needed in the public interest.
But the right wing zealots and the libertarians don’t like the balance established by the Founders; they want to go farther and prevent eminent domain for legitimate public use. That is what this amendment does, and that is why rational citizens on both sides of the aisle realize that this amendment is not needed nor necessary, that it will damage our Commonwealth, and that it just goes too far in preventing needed public infrastructure.
Mike, you name drop a couple of founders, then pervert, distort and generally misrepresent the context of their positions. Back in the day of George Mason and James Madison slaves were also considered private property, so you’re in an apples and oranges debate with yourself again. Mason saw the slave trade as “diabolical in itself” and “disgraceful to mankind” and yet complains that “they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already”.
Madison was a little more forthright on private property: “If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.” But again like Mason, Madison acknowledged that slavery was a great evil, but continued to regard his slaves as property. So in all of your “Founder” name dropping, are you advocating that we return to considering private property the same as owning slaves with all rights and privileges of that ownership being afforded to the Government?
Well Tim J, nice try, but it is clear we are talking about eminent domain and real estate. You can attempt to divert attention from the negative effects of this amendment by any means possible, but it won’t work.
The amendment corrupts the balance between property rights, and the obligation of elected officials to protect the public interest by obtaining property for public infrastructure. That is a basic and fundamental responsibility, and it will be usurped by this amendment.
It simply is unnecessary, expensive, and harmful to the Commonwealth, its local jurisdictions, and private enterprise.
Many towns and counties have been told by their attorneys that Mr. Bell’s bill is so loosely worded that any person could start a lawsuit of damages whenever local governments repair a street or put in a water line. Mr. Bell should amend his bill.
Mike, you keep trying to use our Founders as justification for your self interest. Most of us choose to respect them for their contributions to the founding of our Republic, not as tools to justify a means to an end.
Not at all Tim J. I simply think that they got it right and it does not need to be tampered with in such a cavalier fashion without due process and full consideration to the many unintended consequences detailed by many people smarter than me.
What is being missed here is the definition of ” Public Use”
I am all for using eminent domain for those projects that are truly in the publics interest, such as highways or water treatment plants, etc. However, what is often the case is a third party, usually a private developer who owns property trying to convince a governing agency to compel a landowner with an adjacent tract of land to cough up said property for their use. They usually make the pitch that the taking is in the “publics ” best interest due to an increase in tax revenue or the economic development their project would yield if only they had the use of the adjacent property. Donald Trump was but one developer who used this tactic on numerous occasions. Usually when the Gov’t gets involved the sellers leverage is greatly reduced and the state becomes the strong arm agent for a private entity.
Being a true conservative and one who believes these issues are better left to the market, I suggest those who have their eyes on someones elses property make them an offer that they are likely to accept. The purchase price should be in direct proportion to your desire for the property. If the seller or adjacent land owner refuses to sell, then I suggest you should go to development plan B that does not require the taking of others private property in order to utilize yours as you had envisioned. Your right to develop your property does not supercede your neighbors private property rights.
Take the train from DC to NYC and you’ll see some compelling reasons for eminent domain when it comes to redevelopment. Sure, those rowhouses in south Philly and south Baltimore may be privately owned, but the entire city would benefit from their condemnation, destruction and redevelopment – even if the net impact was condemnation for a “private” purpose.
To poster Stone, I am pleased we agree. I accept your definition of public use. Your example however of some rumored activity by Donald Trump does not add any credence to the need for an amendment. Fact is, in Virginia, the use of eminent domain is reserved for public use; therefore, no amendment is necessary nor required.
For many of our projects in developed Virginia Beach, we have patiently negotiated over more than a decade to buy adjacent parcels so we could develop projects like Pavilion Center I & II, Saltmeadow Bay, and Rosemont Interstate Center, projects which have contributed millions in tax revenue to the City of Virginia.
So as you say, that is how it should be done, and despite rumors and accusations of developers using other techniques, frankly, who really knows? When people oppose projects, they say just about anything.
The constitution in Virginia and supporting statutes are quite vigorous in the support of our property rights. No amendment is needed. Further, the proposed amendment will cause many unintended consequences, and it is not ready for prime time.
Llloyd the Idiot, a kind of…it’s an eyesore so let’s tear it down and make it better. Needless to say, those are people’s homes. They may not meet your standards…but then again. A home is where the hat is hung.
Enjoy the decline of America as people are looting our banks and destroying what wealth is left…private property. Did you know private property is the main source of revenue for small businesses?
This is by design but the idiots who is planning it doesn’t realize the damage they are causing. Right Mike?
I meant private property is the main resource to borrow money from…not the main source of revenue.
In all due respect to LLoyd, his example has nothing to do with this discussion. Unless those homes were needed for a project approved by the governing body for a public use as defined in the constitution, eminent domain cannot be used in Virginia.
Let us not confuse this issue. Virginia is not New London in Connecticut. This proposed amendment is damaging our Commonwealth.
Mike,
It has everything to do with eminent domain, no matter how you wish to parse words.
People are under the impression that we need to use government to clean up properties and kick people out of their homes. These idiots know nothing about the histories of public housing…it got its reputation for a reason.
The New London rule allows you to practice fascism. If that ruling didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to be one of the ones looting our treasuries.
“down zoning” is “eminent domain” by another name which restricts private land use to the point where the owner has no other options other than to sell the land at the “down zoned” value.
Actually John, that is what you and other libertarians would have us believe, but of course, that is a gross exaggeration of the situation in Virginia today.
First, Virginia is not Connecticut; our definition of public use is, well, public use. Kelo could not have happened here.
Second, the right of the citizens in a particular jurisdiction to establish a redevelopment authority to reverse the perverse effects of blight and social disintegration is established in Virginia. Again, now that suburbs face the same spiral of deterioration as urban areas, cities must have this ability, on behalf of their citizens, to address blight, or else all real estate diminishes in value.
So again, no amendment is needed nor necessary. It creates more problems than it solves. It is terribly crafted, is a budget buster, and would stop major highway projects needed for our Commonwealth to comptete for business relocations.
[...] Friday columnist Leahy (Bearing Drift) revealed [...]
Mike,
You’re just a crony capitalist and most of the so-called “blighted” property is property the city condemns on some bogus terms. Then they put codes and compliance until you have to get rid of the property because of a corrupt, fascist government.
Just as Plessy v. Ferguson was to “separate but equal” so is Kelo v. New London. Hopefully, we don’t have to wait 60 years for a Brown v. Education. Both at which the Supreme Court got disasterously wrong.
…and the intent of our government is to get us out of vehicles, not assist with traffic. Hell, they don’t even hide it with the downtown tunnel.
John, you are divorced from the reality of significant blight in both urban and older suburban areas in which a housing and development authority can assist in reversing the spiral of decay and deterioration. But frankly, this discussion is irrelevant to that issue; even the proposed amendment allows eminent domain in these cases to proceed.
So you have not offered one reason that survives scrutiny for this amendment to be necessary. Fact is, if citizens in a political jurisdiction decide that they have a public need which requires their local government, on the people’s behalf, to obtain real estate, they ought to have that right. The property owner must be assured that he/she will be fairly and equitably compensated for the take.
Frankly, that process was established in 1776, and it exists today. You may want that to change but if so, you are working against the balance established by the framers.
There you go again, Mike… the the “process” the Founders established considered slaves as property and the “balance established by the framers” was biased by that fact. It took as another 80 years and a Civil War to figure it out.
BD,
Where’s my posts? My posts were deleted.
John,
We moved servers overnight and some comments left during the transition are on the old server. We are in the process of recovering them. Sorry for any issues.
John, we moved servers last night and a few comments were lost.
No big deal. If what you said was that brilliant, I’m sure you can recall what you said and enlighten us again.
Mike.
My example is germane, and the use of Donald Trump was an example based on a case in NJ not in anyway specific to any project in VA.
Adjacent land is often required for the purpose of putting in public improvements to be proffered to the town ,city , county or state as part of a specific development package.
Developer wants to build Wally World Park. He draws up the plans and goes to the county. The county says ok, but here is a list of proffers or improvements we want done in order to approve your request. In that list is a requirement for a clover leaf for access to the park. In order to build the clover leaf the developer needs my property. After failing to get me to sell my land, the developer hires a legal team to pitch the county on the benefits Wally World would provide the county in the way of taxes, jobs and economic activity, if only the county would use the force of law to compel me to cough up my land for the greater good. My property rights just took a back seat to the wishes of a developer who happened to have a project that provided benefits to the county. The benefits to the county are used to sell the project politically while providing a legal basis for the taking of private property.
The clover leaf was not part of a new interstate highway required by the state or county, it was a requirement for the construction of Wally World that could be labeled as an public improvement.
So Mr. Stone, you need not venture so afar; Rolls Royce, which was heavily recruited to Virginia, and which required an interchange for ingress and egress to their plant, got one from VDOT and also received significant investment from the Governor’s closing fund. As far as I know, VDOT used eminent domain to acquire the land for this interchange.
Are you suggesting that this was an improper use of eminent domain? Since the governor is now touting improvements to U.S. 460 and to U.S. 58 as absolutely required for economic development, since this amendment would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development, are you suggesting that is the state be required to obtain the right of way only by negotiation? Do we need these improvemnts this century or next?
Frankly, your example throws a pefect spotlight on this issue. If the elected officials of the Commonwealth, or those in a constitutionally established political jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, vote for obtaining land for public use, would you deny them this constitutional right if it benefitted the Commonwealth economically?
That is exactly what this amendment does, and thank you for bringing this issue into clearer focus. I believe the framers established a balance between property rights and the need for public infrastructure to benefit the community. If private property is needed, the State should be able to take it if the owner is equitably compensated. That is what is required today, and no amendment is needed at all.
Mike, pushing off of John’s deleted comments, don’t you and your cronys have the unique distinction of being fired by Gov. Tim Kaine as the unelected cabal that ran SPSA into the ground?
Did Mike Barrett write that government has a constitutional right to condemn property?
That’s how I read this response to Mr. Stone:
“If the elected officials of the Commonwealth, or those in a constitutionally established political jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, vote for obtaining land for public use, WOULD YOU DENY THEM THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT if it benefitted the Commonwealth economically?”
Thanks for clarifying why your critique of the constitutional amendment is so absurd.
Dennis, in all due respect, yes, of course, in a republic, the will of the people, constrained by the principles in the constitution, prevail. If the people inform their elected representatives that land is needed for public use, to provide a road, a school, a utility, an interstate highway, then yes, subject to equitable compensation, the will of the people shall prevail.
If your argument in support of this amendment does not recognize this principle, then Dennis, I have to respectfully inquire whether you have gone over the edge. Afterall, you made your living in the communication business, that depended upon roads, utility systems, government buildings, all public uses, to make your livlihood. Are you now saying that the people do not have the constitutional right to vote for elected officials and to authorize them to provide public infrastructure?
If you really beleive that we have a bigger problem than this amendment.
Mike,
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your remarks to Mr. Stone. I read your response to suggest there is a constitutional right for government to condemn property, or that popular consent created a waiver of constitutional protections.
As to what I believe. It is this: We have in Virginia, in our city halls and courthouses, a culture of indifference, even ignorance, about property rights that leads to abuse and excess in its exercise. Too many elected officials seem unaware that eminent domain must be exercised narrowly for public uses (like those you identify), not broadly for general public purposes, or public benefits (e.g. Arlington homeless shelter).
I also believe that many government officials consistently use their powers and advantages in the law (forced sale to a single buyer) to get land from property owners at less than market values. I believe that many public officials treat Virginians whose property they are taking as adversaries and nuisances, behavior that grows into arrogance and hubris.
I do not find share your opinion that the amendment will halt road or utility work, and can find no evidence that it will drive up right of way costs or legal expenses. If there is such information, VDOT will not release it to me because I have asked for it.
Leave your response