Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeSA sponsors eminent domain discussion
October 9, 2006 —
A Student Association-sponsored panel discussion on eminent domain - the expropriation of private property by the state - was held Tuesday night in the Malcolm Field Theatre for Performing Arts.
On Nov. 7, Michigan voters will be presented with Proposal 4, a proposal to amend the constitutional use of eminent domain. Proposal 4 would amend Article X, Section 2 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution and would end the use of eminent domain where private property is condemned for transfer to private entity for the purpose of economic development or increased tax revenues.
It would define when eminent domain is permissible to transfer private property to a private entity by the three-part standard of the County of Wayne v. Hathcock ruling.
First, it would have to be recognized that the taking of the private property is a "public necessity of the extreme sort" that requires collective action. For instance, the proposed amendment would prevent small entities such as township zoning commissions to control private property usage. The amendment would involve larger commissions, perhaps on the level of county boards or special courts of appeal.
Second, the private property would have to remain overseen by the public after the transfer.
Third, the reason for the transfer of private property would have to regard the public interest rather than the interest of the private entity receiving the property.
Besides placing the Hathcock amendments in the Constitution, the amendment also would require governments to provide compensation for enforcing eminent domain of an amount at least equal to 125 percent of a residential property's fair market value. Under this amendment, therefore, it would be more costly to acquire private property for private use.
On Tuesday, a six-person panel discussed and debated the necessity of this proposed amendment, while SVSU political science instructor Mark Nicol acted as moderator.
SVSU adjunct political science professor Jim Johnson, President of Prime Housing Group in East Lansing Nancy Kurdziel, and Senior Environmental Policy Analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy Russ Harding argued that the proposed amendment is necessary for the protection of property rights.
"Central planning didn't work well in Europe," Harding said, "and I don't think it will work well here."
"It's not that we're opposed to development," Kurdziel said. "It's just that we need to make sure the property owners are the ones getting the chance to do it. Property rights are the most important thing. We've got it in the courts and in the legislature, but we need to lock it into the Constitution."
On the other side of the debate, Saginaw attorney H. Michael Dwan, Midland attorney Pete Poznak, and Bay City attorney Bruce K. Mannikko argued that the proposed amendment is unnecessary.
"We're talking about the transfer of private property to a private entity," Poznak said. "The Michigan Supreme Court says you cannot do that. Do not go amending the Constitution if there is no need to do so. But regardless of your perspective, it's just important to vote.”
