| The Wall Street Journal REVIEW & OUTLOOK Mississippi Churning |
The state's willingness to bring out the bulldozers for no good reason appalls landowner
Lonzo Archie. A welder whose family has owned the land at issue for 60 years, he told us:
"We simply don't want to live elsewhere; these are where our roots are."
So far, the Mississippi Supreme Court has been sympathetic. It has halted seizure
proceedings in every eminent domain case connected to the Nissan project while it
considers the constitutional issues. The state constitution seems to limit the eminent
domain power only to public-works projects.
Mr. Archie and the other families are being represented by the Institute for Justice, a
libertarian law firm from Washington, D.C., and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, a civil rights group. "They call it an odd coupling," says Stephanie
Parker-Weaver, the director of the Conference's state chapter. "But keeping your family's
land is clearly also a civil right."
Mississippi argues that as a poor state it has the right to seek the "highest and best use"
of land to create needed jobs. But if that's the case then the takings clause of the U.S.
Constitution means nothing because a government can always find a "better" use for
someone's private property.
Property owners are offered money when their land is condemned for private use, but the
compensation is often far from just. Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law
professor, says government frequently lowballs its compensation offers. "You get
frequent corruption as people pressure city halls to seize land on the cheap," he says.
Last month a Mississippi jury awarded landowner John Smith $20,000 for a 1.6-acre
parcel that had been seized for the Nissan plant. That's more than double the state's best
offer of $9,200.
After years of slumber, citizens and courts are waking up to the abuses eminent domain
can create. In 2000, voters in Baltimore County, Maryland, repealed a law giving the
county government expanded powers to use eminent domain for economic development.
Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy abandoned plans to use eminent domain to redevelop his
downtown after citizen protests.
The courts are also getting involved. Last year a Pennsylvania court held that
MontgomeryCounty couldn't transfer its sovereign eminent domain power to a developer.
Even New Jersey's activist liberal Supreme Court has ruled that a state development
agency was out of bounds in seizing property to provide additional parking for a casino
owned by Donald Trump.
No one argues that struggling cities or states don't have a right to improve themselves
through redevelopment. But care must be taken that that right doesn't extend to land
seizures from which politically connected players stand to gain far more than the general
public.
The 30 acres owned by the three families are at the southern tip of the 1,400-acre project.
Ironically, the state has admitted it doesn't really need the land to ensure the factory is
built. In September, James Burns Jr., executive director of the Mississippi Development
Authority, gave the game away: "It's not that Nissan is going to leave if we don't get that
land. What's important is the message it would send to other companies if we are unable
to do what we said we would do." The next month the candid Mr. Burns was relieved of
his position by Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove In 2000, Mississippi went hog
wild in outbidding neighboring states for the Nissan factory by offering a fat package of
close to $300 million in subsidies and tax breaks. The deal included $80 million from the
state to train Nissan's new workers. Also included was a pledge to "quick-take" the
property of three families and give it to Nissan so it could build a parking lot and access
road for the factory. The Constitution provides for government to seize private property for
"public use" so long as "just compensation" is given. But can a state seize land on behalf
of a private corporation in the name of economic development? Mississippi's efforts to
uproot homeowners from their land so it can be used for a Nissan truck factory is only the
latest example of how eminent domain is being abused for private and political gain.
Lonzo Archie. A welder whose family has owned the land at issue for 60 years, he told us:
"We simply don't want to live elsewhere; these are where our roots are."
So far, the Mississippi Supreme Court has been sympathetic. It has halted seizure
proceedings in every eminent domain case connected to the Nissan project while it
considers the constitutional issues. The state constitution seems to limit the eminent
domain power only to public-works projects.
Mr. Archie and the other families are being represented by the Institute for Justice, a
libertarian law firm from Washington, D.C., and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, a civil rights group. "They call it an odd coupling," says Stephanie
Parker-Weaver, the director of the Conference's state chapter. "But keeping your family's
land is clearly also a civil right."
Mississippi argues that as a poor state it has the right to seek the "highest and best use"
of land to create needed jobs. But if that's the case then the takings clause of the U.S.
Constitution means nothing because a government can always find a "better" use for
someone's private property.
Property owners are offered money when their land is condemned for private use, but the
compensation is often far from just. Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law
professor, says government frequently lowballs its compensation offers. "You get
frequent corruption as people pressure city halls to seize land on the cheap," he says.
Last month a Mississippi jury awarded landowner John Smith $20,000 for a 1.6-acre
parcel that had been seized for the Nissan plant. That's more than double the state's best
offer of $9,200.
After years of slumber, citizens and courts are waking up to the abuses eminent domain
can create. In 2000, voters in Baltimore County, Maryland, repealed a law giving the
county government expanded powers to use eminent domain for economic development.
Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy abandoned plans to use eminent domain to redevelop his
downtown after citizen protests.
The courts are also getting involved. Last year a Pennsylvania court held that
MontgomeryCounty couldn't transfer its sovereign eminent domain power to a developer.
Even New Jersey's activist liberal Supreme Court has ruled that a state development
agency was out of bounds in seizing property to provide additional parking for a casino
owned by Donald Trump.
No one argues that struggling cities or states don't have a right to improve themselves
through redevelopment. But care must be taken that that right doesn't extend to land
seizures from which politically connected players stand to gain far more than the general
public.
The 30 acres owned by the three families are at the southern tip of the 1,400-acre project.
Ironically, the state has admitted it doesn't really need the land to ensure the factory is
built. In September, James Burns Jr., executive director of the Mississippi Development
Authority, gave the game away: "It's not that Nissan is going to leave if we don't get that
land. What's important is the message it would send to other companies if we are unable
to do what we said we would do." The next month the candid Mr. Burns was relieved of
his position by Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove In 2000, Mississippi went hog
wild in outbidding neighboring states for the Nissan factory by offering a fat package of
close to $300 million in subsidies and tax breaks. The deal included $80 million from the
state to train Nissan's new workers. Also included was a pledge to "quick-take" the
property of three families and give it to Nissan so it could build a parking lot and access
road for the factory. The Constitution provides for government to seize private property for
"public use" so long as "just compensation" is given. But can a state seize land on behalf
of a private corporation in the name of economic development? Mississippi's efforts to
uproot homeowners from their land so it can be used for a Nissan truck factory is only the
latest example of how eminent domain is being abused for private and political gain.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |