Last week, Sen. Mark Obenshain posted an article on his Facebook page on the Virgina property rights amendment that’s on this November’s ballot. In it, Obenshain tells us something rather stunning: that the Democratic Party of Virginia’s central governing body has adopted a resolution opposing the amendment. He thinks it has put them in a precarious position:
Some—mostly on the left—have opposed the Virginia Property Rights Amendment, calling it unnecessary. They’ve said that eminent domain abuse doesn’t exist in Virginia, that an Amendment is superfluous. As the Amendment’s Senate patron, I’ve always pointed to cases of clear abuse, some ongoing, and to attempts by some Democrats to chip away at the laws we have protecting the rights of private property owners.
But now I can just point to a resolution adopted by the Democratic Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee (their governing body). You want to know why we need the Virginia Property Rights Amendment? Look no farther than the astonishing reasons the state Democratic Party cites for opposing it:
They oppose it because it “will lock into the Virginia Constitution a prohibition on using eminent domain to advance private enterprise, job creation, tax revenue generation, or economic development.”
In other words, they oppose it because it actually defines public use – because it makes clear what was once taken for granted, that condemning your property to hand it over to a private developer is not a legitimate public use. They actually want to preserve government’s ability to continue to engage in abusive eminent domain practices.
In recent years, “public use” has been turned into an ill-defined notion of “public purpose,” where a “public purpose” is whatever a local government wants it to be. And the Democratic Party of Virginia wants to keep it that way.
And they go on. They also oppose the Amendment because they say it will “add to the complexity and expense of governmental entities seeking to utilize eminent domain for the benefit of taxpayers, even when property is taken for unquestioned public purposes.”
Let’s unpack that statement. Firstly, what do you think of that telling “even” – as if takings for “unquestioned public purposes” (not even “public use”!) are just one sort of legitimate taking? And what sort of complexity are we talking about here, the “complexity” of distinguishing between true public uses (roads, schools, utilities, etc.) and impermissible takings (e.g., handing over the property to a private developer)? This isn’t rocket science.
And “expense” – what expense, exactly? They’re referring to the requirement that property owners must receive fair compensation. Does this come with a price tag? Sure. But let’s call it what it is: just compensation. We all want to save money, but presumably not by shortchanging property owners.
Our friends in the Democratic Party aren’t quite done. Here’s the final reason cited for their opposition: “Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli strongly supports the amendment.” Listen, I get that the Democratic establishment doesn’t like our Attorney General, but it’s hard to come up with a more petty reason than that to oppose a constitutional amendment that protects the rights of all Virginians.
They will be happy to know, however, that one of their own candidates for Attorney General, Senator Mark Herring, is opposed to enshrining property rights in the Constitution of Virginia. Or at least, he is now, voting against the Amendment on second passage earlier this year – after supporting it once its first year passage became a fait accompli in 2011. He supported it before he opposed it. Sound familiar?
Make no mistake about it: Virginia Democrats are gearing up to oppose the Property Rights Amendment. If we let this opportunity to restore property rights slip through our fingers, we may not get a chance again for a very long time. We have to win this one.
So because Ken Cuccinelli is for the amendment, the DPVA is against it.
That’s taking petulance to strange new heights.
It will also be fascinating to see which Democratic candidates decide to toe the DPVA line on this one. If I’m George Allen, the first question I ask Tim Kaine in the next debate is whether he agrees with the DPVA and opposes the property rights amendment.
Because we all know how delicious it would be to have Mr. Kaine backing taxes for all, and property rights for none.
