Indiana Will Show Us The Way? Really? Maybe.

Doug from over at DougPetch.com points me over to this piece in the Indy Star: House OKs higher price for eminent domain

The Indiana House voted Tuesday to make it more costly for government to condemn private property for the sake of commercial development, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could lead to even more restrictions.

Supporters of House Bill 1063 complained that the wants of developers have trumped the rights of average citizens. They argued that eminent domain laws, which allow the government to buy property against the owners' wishes, have strayed far from their original purpose of making it possible for roads and other necessities to be built.

"We've gone from a public use to a public good," said Rep. David A. Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, the author of the bill. "That's a pretty subjective term."

Wolkins' bill would force cities, counties and other governments to pay a premium for property they condemn to make way for commercial development -- such as new subdivisions, shopping centers or manufacturing plants.

I wish this article spelled out directly that we are talking about the government taking property away from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen, but otherwise it is presented succinctly.

I loved this quote:

"The bill makes it more difficult and costly for cities to do economic development," said Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel. "I'm not sure what this bill is trying to fix."

Translation: "I'm wealthy and powerful, so I don't uderstand why I shouldn't be able to force poor people to sell their homes to my wealthy and powerful associates? After all, can't we all agree that poor people have no right to live on property with scenic river views? It's just common sense to me."

The newspaper article makes the mistake of conflating "public use" eminent domain cases with the much more nefarious "public good" cases.

Few things spark more ill will than when a city tries to claim a property that an owner doesn't want to give up. The city's Capital Improvement Board is now sparring in court with the owner of a Downtown parking lot that would be part of an IndyGo transit hub. The two sides remain far apart, representatives for the city and the lot owner said Tuesday.

While I'm sure there is all kinds of wrangling over what "fair market value" is for a piece of property that also produces yearly income (like a parking lot would), this is obviously a case where the property would be used for public use, in this case part of a mass transit system. This is entirely different from pushing elderly people from their homes in order that Home Depot can build a new store on that property.