Eminent Domain Legislation Passes the House

Story at CNN

The House voted 376-38 Thursday to approve the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 --a bill cosponsored by 98 members of Congress that would prohibit states and local communities that receive federal economic development to invoke eminent domain as a means for private industry to build private businesses. A companion measure has been introduced in the Senate.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats supported this bill (roll call vote), but there were still 36 in opposition, as opposed to 2 Republicans voting against the bill. As a benchmark, Ron Paul voted for the bill.

So is there any good reason for voting against this bill? Perhaps opponents favored local control over such issues, but I don't know that any of the opponents can be considered "state's righters". I nominate this vote for the next Freedom Democrats voter's guide.

There's some general analysis of property rights and eminent domain at Environmental Economist.

On the whole, I tend to agree with you that the opponents of the bill don't have a leg to stand on. But one Democrat in particular, Bobby Scott, voted against this bill and I've found that in the past he's one of the strongest civil libertarians in the House. This does bring up a difficult issue related to the poll for November. Should this really be a local issue or not?

Environmental Economist is an interesting sight, and I appreciate their take on environmental problems, but I lost count of how many times I saw mention of Coase's Theorem. Now, I have no problem with that theorem--in theory--however, often times free-market fundamentalists have this almost Asperger's Syndrome-like quality where they assume that people are "highly rational" and are always capable of making "rational decisions". i don't know if this makes me "left" or what, but i think it's fairly obvious, to anyone not spending 12 hours a day behind an economics desk, that people are in fact, highly emotional, not highly rational. i say this, somewhat hypocritically, as someone who is on the more "rational" side of the equation, but i digress.

The legislation doesn't go far enough IMO...

The government stealing your home and giving it to someone promising to make them more money being somehow protected simply because it is local government putting the screws to you makes no sense. It'd amount to saying "yeah, city council can have you strung up on a whim, but at least it ain't D.C.!"

I don't care if it's people in Congress or people on my own block, there is a line that they must never cross if they value their positions.