Here's another report from the field by Libertarian correspondent Mike Sylvester:
The city of Fort Wayne has announced a new potential site for a hotel; it will most likely be built where Cindy's Diner is currently located. The city originally wanted to build this hotel on the Belmont Beverage property that it seized by eminent domain a couple of years ago. Two years later, officials have changed their minds. They do not currently know what they are going to use the Belmont property for.
Did you know that the hotel occupancy rate in Fort Wayne is 49.9 percent?
I have two questions for the people of Fort Wayne:
1. Do you think city officials were justified when they seized private property with eminent domain to build a hotel that they changed their minds about two years later?
2. Do you think we need another hotel in Fort Wayne?
Comments
1. The city shouldn't use eminent domain for anything but important roads, sewers and other public uses.
2. Why is the city building hotels? If there is a need for a hotel a developer will buy property and build it. If the city is taking over the economy we need to stop them.
1. They seized one place that they are no longer going to use and now want to build over Cindy's Diner...are small businesses protected from the City or does the City plan to ruin small business? They had no right to seize it in the first place.
2. Jeanette answered this question and there is little I could add to it.
1. Eminent domain should be used only for true public uses, ie. roads.
2. My question is this: what is the occupancy rate of the (few) downtown hotels? I believe they are trying to get more hotel space downtown so that they can have conventions in the Grand Wayne Center. I wish that they had not spent the money on the Grand Wayne Center expansion to begin with, but now that they have done that I suppose they want to add hotel space downtown to ensure that people will come to conventions there. I think the whole downtown revitalization plan will end up costing us taxpayers more money than will be brought in with new tax revenue.
If Cindy's diner ends up being in danger, then perhaps we should contact the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org) and the Castle Coalition (http://castlecoalition.org/. We need to fight this. Once the terrible Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision was made, the Institute for Justice allocated 3 million dollars for local eminent domain fights. We will probably need to put a great deal of pressure on local government if we want small businesses to survive. The eminent domain ruling is a disaster. The floodgates have certainly been opened. There were already eminent domain abuses locally, in my opinion. It will almost certainly get worse. Regardless of whether or not Fort Wayne needs another hotel, it should not be able to satisfy that need by forcing a small business out.
If there were truly a need for another hotel in Downtown Fort Wayne, a private company would recognize this need and build one with property bought through mutually beneficial negotations with the owner of said property, not by a government that has no business in building a hotel on property that does not belong to them and likely is not for sale.
The Constitution requires governments to make "just compensation" to the owner of property being seized through eminent domain. If the land is being used for a business, then to me, the only "just compensation" to the owner would be another piece of land of equal value to move the business to.
The 5th Ammendment of the Constitution is clear and specific: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Source: www.usconstitution.net)
I focus your attention on the specific phrase "taken for public use". I will admit and agree that this gives wide latitude for the state (Federal, State, & Local) to take property for all sorts of Governmental usage that goes beyond roads. For example, building a jail, military base, water purification plant, park, roads, and so on.
The taking of property from one private individual to give it to another private individual is abusive and heavy handed!
Legislation must be passed to limit exactly what the government can take, why they can take it, how the taking is to be funded (and having that funding already available). Otherwise, the guy with the deepest pockets can lobby (read: bribe) local governments to take property from the little guy and keep it for himself (until someone bigger comes along).
Respectfully,
Douglas E Horner