The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy offers the following template letter for use in responding to news articles:
http://steadystate.org/Letters/LetterEminentDomain.html The topic is the movement in state legislatures to curb the use of eminent domain for purposes of economic growth. This movement stems from the Supreme Courts decision last year in Kelo v. New London, where small landowners in New London, CT filed suit against the city when the city exercised eminent domain to turn their properties over to developers. The Supreme Court ruled that New London acted constitutionally, based partly on the grounds that it would serve the "public purpose" of economic growth. Yesterday, USA Today carried a story about the numerous states that are devising legislation to avoid the precedent of Kelo v. New London. This suggests there will be a protracted period in which these types of stories will be reported in nationally oriented and state-wide newspapers. Feel free to use the CASSE template for respoding to such stories. It is also worth noting that this movement illustrates the utility of professional society position statements on economic growth. With a solid foundation of positions, the Environmental Defense Fund or the NRDC (for example) could have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court last spring, to the effect that the appropriateness of economic growth as a "public purpose" needs to be reconsidered in the current, full-world context. Such a brief may have done more to educate the public on the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (and long-term economic security) than any prior educational episode, because the nuances of Kelo v. New London were all over the front pages last spring. The template letter on eminent domain is also reproduced below for your convenience, and the full collection of CASSE template letters and editorials is found here: http://steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html ***************************** Eminent Domain for Economic Growth? There have always been opponents of eminent domain, but the recent surge of opposition is unprecedented and in many ways encouraging (States Review Eminent Domain, USA Today, Feb. 20). In the latter part of the 20th century, the major opponents were those who wanted to keep the government out of their backyard. Uncle Sam and his cousins in the states would no longer think of condemning the local swamp for purposes of creating a national wildlife refuge or a state park. Nothing would be more certain to spark an agrarian revolt by the likes of the local posse comitatus. The revolt this time is coming from a broad base of agricultural, residential, and small business interests who reject the notion of their private properties being targeted for the public purpose of economic growth. Why should the growth of Big Box be deemed more of a public purpose than the stability of home-grown communities? The current opposition also provides an important opportunity to reconsider the worthiness of economic growth as a public purpose. Economic growth more goods and services, roads and parking lots, malls and factories - may have been a public purpose when the land was an endless frontier. But when counties one by one are developing programs to deal with the undesirable consequences of growth, perhaps it is time for the courts to recognize that the public purpose of economic growth has already been fulfilled. ***************************** Brian Czech, President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy WWW.STEADYSTATE.ORG Sign the position on economic growth at: http://steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html
