Court’s Eminent Domain Ruling Endangers Property Rights

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

For decades, the property rights of Missouri residents have been disregarded as municipalities throughout the state plowed through personal history in the disastrous pursuit of progress. Recently, the state’s highest court had a chance to correct this wrong and restore a sense of safety to the minds of Missouri’s home and business owners. However, the court neglected this opportunity by turning in a terrible decision that served nothing more than the status quo, and acted as reaffirmation of an invasive trend that should worry every property owner.

On March 18, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down a 6-1 decision in favor of “development” trumping property rights in the matter of City of Arnold v. Homer Tourkakis. Dr. Tourkakis, a dentist who has been practicing in Arnold for more than 20 years, was threatened with the loss of his office when the city sought to acquire land through the use of eminent domain for the new Arnold Commons shopping center. Had the city needed to exercise this power for a legitimate public use, Dr. Tourkakis’ might have understood the property invasion. However, the idea of Arnold subverting this constitutional power to forcefully transfer property from one private party to another was enough not only for Tourkakis to reject the city’s offer, but to seek relief from the highest court in the state.

Arnold v. Tourkakis was a rare opportunity for Missouri to protect the individual rights of citizens, and emphatically stamp out an unjust abuse of municipal power. The court could have reassured citizens that the homes they worked to build would always be their castles, and that the businesses they labored to run would be free from unjust interference.

Instead, the court found in favor of the city — and watched that chance sail by.

According to the decision, Arnold is justified in using the power of eminent domain to seize Tourkakis’ property (which had been blocked off by surrounding construction for more than a year). This decision overturned a prior ruling by a state trial court because, according to the opinion authored by Judge Mary Russell, “The trial court erred … in dismissing the City’s condemnation action. The City is authorized under several statutes … to exercise eminent domain.”

These words have struck a blow against the property rights of every Missourian. In the past few weeks, property owners in the Liberty and Sugar Creek townships near Kansas City have been forced to face the sad reality that their homes may be lawfully seized for private development. Meanwhile, across the state, as homeowners in Valley Park begin to pull sandbags away from the flooded Meramec River, they must wonder whether the homes they worked so hard to protect might similarly be taken away — a threat they faced in November.

Thankfully, though, there is still hope. The Court failed to rule on the controversial nature of Missouri’s “blight” definition, which has allowed municipalities in the past to condemn pristine areas and doom them to economic failure. Also, as highlighted by Judge Teitelman in the lone dissent to the majority opinion, the section of Missouri’s Constitution that ostensibly authorizes Arnold to wield the power of eminent domain “does not expressly authorize the wholesale delegation of such power to third-class cities” — a class that the city of Arnold falls under.

However, the few glimmers of hope that still exist for the case do not make up for the fact that Tourkakis will almost certainly lose his office, and that any orthopedist in Joplin or homeowner in Chesterfield has lost a chance to protect the property that is rightfully theirs. If Missouri citizens will ever feel completely secure about the fact that their homes are their castles, they first need to accept that the status quo will continue with every decision made by the judiciary and legislature. Only the efforts of citizens, working within their rights to correct this problem, will foster necessary progress. We should hope that these efforts succeed, and — for all our sakes — that it happens soon.

Nicholas A. Loyal is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He will begin a graduate program at the University of Missouri School of Law this fall.

 

Unlicensed Interior Decorators Wreak Havoc on Living Rooms

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice has a great op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about licensing interior decorators. Missouri doesn’t require anyone who does interior decorating to get a license, but you do need a license to call yourself by the title "interior decorator." Details of the Missouri law are here. A few states actually forbid interior decorating without a license; the interior decorators say such regulations are essential to protect public welfare. Neilly shoots down that argument:

If there were any credible evidence that unregulated interior design presents a genuine risk to consumers, ASID would certainly have found it by now. They have had plenty of time (more than three decades), resources (dues for ASID’s 40,000 members average several hundred dollars per year), and incentive. Furthermore, despite ASID’s best efforts, only three states regulate the practice of interior design. That leaves 47 (including California and New York) where the ravages of unlicensed interior design could be easily documented — if there were any.

So what is really behind ASID’s relentless push for more regulation? Simple: naked economic protectionism.

Read the whole thing!

Give Me Milk or Give Me Death

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Kansas City Star‘s Prime Buzz blog reports on a sensible proposal and the entertaining reasoning behind it:

A couple of press releases regarding proposed milk legislation showed up in the Capitol media mailboxes this morning.

Yep, milk legislation.

They’d be pretty unremarkable, these press releases, but for some of the arguments they contain.

Besides opposing the ban on "hormone-free" labels, the Missouri Independent Consumers and Farmers Association is calling on the legislature to permit the sale and delivery of unpasteurized milk. This seems like a reasonable idea, since you’re allowed to buy raw meat or eggs. It’s not possible to cook everything at the grocery store before people buy it; we trust them to be responsible about preparing their own food. (Of course, the milk should be labeled as to whether it’s pasteurized!)

Now for the silly arguments in favor. You have to go to Prime Buzz and read the whole thing. My favorite is: "Raw milk gives the people a reason to peacably assemble."

Right … and the Titanic Was Unsinkable

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

Ordinarily, I’m not one for posting more than once in a single day, but sometimes I just need to highlight egregious claims of stupidity.

As anyone who pays any attention to my ramblings knows, I’m a big proponent of election reform. Despite my fervor for the ideas that come with this, though, even I have to stop from time to time when I see a claim I know is just wrong.

The Suburban Journals has an article today titled "St. Louis County Voter System Tamper Proof," which, for me, is not so much a declaration of security as it is an invitation to try tampering with the system. Although the article goes into extensive detail about the bipartisan procedures that will be followed by election officials (Double-locked doors! Hoorah!) following next week’s local elections, there is little in the text to make me believe that St. Louis’ system (or any other system, for that matter) is fully "tamper-proof."

Allow me to elaborate with an anecdote: Early this February, during Missouri’s presidential primary, I prepared to cast a ballot on one of St. Louis County’s fine touch-screen voting machines. However, because I was in a bit of a hurry, I presumed I knew exactly what I was doing and pushed a button on the machine without listening to the entire set of instructions. This turned on the "Audio Assist" function of the hardware (which was useless, because none of the officials had headphones handy) and inadvertently froze the machine. After waiting for it to reboot, I was allowed to vote, but I left wondering what would’ve happened had I pushed the green button after I had already selected a candidate. Effectively, I could have tampered with the election results — for I am quite the criminal mastermind.

No election system is "tamper-proof." Anyone who says so is either ignorant of their system’s flaws or riding so high on their own hubris that they fail to notice that rushed voters are pushing green buttons and throwing Dewey over Truman. This doesn’t mean that some systems aren’t more effective or secure than others, but no official should ever believe that an election will operate perfectly. After all, democracy isn’t perfect, but … well, that would just be stealing from Churchill.

Moving in the Right Direction

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

Some good news on the property rights front (which, I assure you, is not an April Fool’s joke — although if you want to read one of those, try this).

According to an article in the Post-Dispatch, the St. Charles City Council has planned to vote tonight on whether or not to remove the "blighted" designation given to the city’s historic Frenchtown district. Justin blogged about this previously, but tonight, the protest mentioned before could lead to actual change.

The St. Charles City Council hasn’t always made the best decisions when it comes to protecting personal freedoms, but it’s good to know that members of the Council have caught wind of the political zeitgeist and are attempting to protect their citizens’ property rights. Missouri’s "blight" designation is one of the most permissive methods through which eminent domain can be exercised, and the more that individual municipalities crack down on its liberal use, the more effective they will be at protecting property and clearing actual blighted areas. Let’s hope that the vote tonight goes the right way.

Parents Are Enthusiastic About Charters

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edspresso links to an interesting article about charter schools in Rhode Island:

Competition for Rhode Island’s charter schools is fierce. Nine of the state’s 11 charter schools are so popular, they conduct lotteries each spring to fill the few dozen places each has available. Hundreds of students languish on wait lists with little hope of ever getting in.

What sets this article apart from most of the press coverage of charter schools is that it focuses on the families that hope to send their children to charters. The Providence Journal interviewed some of these parents, who discuss their children’s unique characteristics and explain why the charter schools they’re interested in would be a good fit.

Charter school critics have argued that much of the charters’ success can be attributed to the parents who are involved and making choices for their kids. What they overlook is that the more options there are, the more likely parents are to become involved and to make choices. Some parents will research schools even if they’re very difficult to get into, like the Rhode Island charter schools. But if their kids have a more realistic chance of admission, if there are more charter schools and more open spaces, many more parents will take the time to learn about the available schools. So, if you want engaged parents, give them choices.

Location, Location, Location

Posted on by Justin Hauke

It seems that property tax reassessment reform is nearing final passage in the House (it’s already passed the Senate). I’ve written before about this bill, but here’s a reminder: It would mandate that local jurisdictions roll back property tax rates in response to higher assessments. Advocates argue that the rollback provision is necessary because it ensures that city officials approve tax increases by a vote, rather than by simply inflating property values.

The article has some pretty good coverage of the arguments. In addition, Dave Stokes wrote a fairly comprehensive review of property tax reform last December, and blogged about it here.

But I still don’t completely buy the whole “rollback” argument. While I recognize the potential for appraisal abuse, people certainly don’t feel upset when their house depreciates and they then pay less in taxes. So why should it work in reverse? And if we extend the argument further, why not mandate the same thing for sales tax rates? If the price of a good appreciates in value, should consumers pay a lower tax rate on that good so that the nominal amount of tax is the same as before? Certainly, that would seem silly. But maybe I’m just missing the point.

I definitely disagree with the recommendation that a fair compromise would involve simply adjusting property appraisals by a county average for a particular type of property. Property values are idiosyncratically determined by their specific locations, and it would be patently unfair (in my opinion) to subsidize booming neighborhoods at the expense of houses that have lost thousands of dollars in value.

The Cost of Good Schools

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show-Me Institute, in conjunction with Saint Louis University, is sponsoring the second lecture in its Series on Economic policy on Thursday, April 17. The speaker, James Guthrie, will address the question, "How Much Money Will It Take to Give America Good Schools?" Here’s a snippet from Guthrie’s bio:

James Guthrie is a professor of public policy and education, chair of the Leadership, Policy, and Organizations department, and director of the Peabody Center for Education Policy at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. He instructs both undergraduate and graduate courses, and conducts research on education policy and finance. He is founder and chairman of the board of Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. (MAP), a private sector management consulting firm specializing in public finance and litigation support.

A pre-event reception will begin at 3:30 p.m. on April 17, with the lecture beginning at 4:00. If you, or anybody you know, may be interested in further examining the complex issues surrounding school finance, be sure to take a look at the event invitation, and then register online.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging