Eminent anger

Two-thirds of Ohio voters would ban the use of public domain even for such public projects as roads, says a Quinnipiac University poll released last week. The press release summed up the poll's findings thusly:

Ohio voters support 78 - 17 percent setting limits on government use of eminent domain. In other questions on this issue:

• Voters oppose 65 - 32 percent using government's eminent domain power to take private property for public projects such as roads;
• Voters oppose 82 - 14 percent using eminent domain to take property for economic development;
• Voters say 50 - 30 percent that government has abused eminent domain in the past.

"Despite their concerns about the economy, Ohio voters don't see the value of eminent domain as an economic development tool," Brown said.

Interestingly, opposition to the use of eminent domain for public use projects pulls a majority of support across Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- but is highest for Democrats at 67 percent, defying the stereotype that donkey-party voters are generally government-friendly. Hostility to the use of eminent domain for economic development is so overwhelming across the board that it should simply put the issue off the table for discussion by politicians.

It's no surprise that State Sen. Timothy J. Grendell told The Cincinnati Enquirer, "If we don't take responsible action in the Legislature, there may be groups that see those poll results and take the initiative to put something on the ballot that would be far more Draconian." With poll results like that, it's almost a given.

I think it's obvious that politicians and urban planners are reaping what they have sowed. Abuses of eminent domain have been so well-publicized, and the Supreme Court's
horrendous Kelo v. New London decision so roundly vilified, that the public is turning against the practice of forcible property takings for any purpose.

In the wake of Kelo, many local governments actually took advantage of the new legal landscape and stepped up their land-grabs -- promptly making headlines by doing so. Eminent domain rightly scares people under any circumstances, and all the more so when they see news reports about people just like them turned out of their homes.

In his column for The Orange County Register, Steven Greenhut captures exactly what's wrong with granting the government the power to seize property:

Today's code words and attitudes may be different than they were in the 1920s, but by giving government so much power to drive people off their land, we all are subject to the whims and rationales of officials. In the 1920s, officials didn't think blacks were "appropriate" for the neighborhood, and these days officials don't want "working-class people" enjoying prime land that could be home to upscale condos.

I would be happy to see eminent domain eliminated entirely. I flat-out don't see a justification for giving the government the power to forcibly displace people. Private property should be a refuge from the state, not a hostage to it.

Most reformers don't go as far as me and focus only on the abuse of eminent domain to displace people in favor of wealthy developers -- economic development, in other words. They're comfortable with -- or at least tolerant of -- the use of force to acquire land to build schools and roads. The ballot initiatives and bills of the past two years haven't sought to abolish eminent domain in its entirety.

But public opinion is a fickle things, and it can take strange turns when people have good reason to get angry. If that Quinnipiac poll is right, us radicals on the eminent domain issues are more in tune with the public than the moderates. Politicians might want to keep those poll results in mind.