According to the Bowling Green Daily News, the newly elected leaders of the City of Bowling Green, KY are concerned about the (ab)use of eminent domain in the city’s downtown revitalization efforts. The paper’s editorial board validates this concern and offers some perspective and advice:
Yet, eminent domain was never intended for broadening the tax base.
. . . .
Some private-business owners in Bowling Green would gladly sell their properties at a fair price, just as every parcel in the transpark was purchased from a willing seller.
But taking private property for another private development seems to be an effort to acquire property on the cheap and distorts the original intent of eminent domain.
Perhaps a moratorium on eminent domain ââ?¬â?? except in cases where eminent domain serves a clear, public purpose ââ?¬â?? should be considered by the city in light of the pending Supreme Court decision.
There’s an idea worth considering. And property rights advocates nationwide are hoping that the Supreme Court will provide much more clarity on what a “clear, public purpose” really is in their ultimate decision in the Kelo vs. New London case. Check out Reason’s Eminent Domain Resource Center for the latest on this important issue. (Hat Tip: Eminent Domain Watch)