January 2, 2012
Jere. F. Moore - Barnesville
What are blighted properties? We all probably have a good idea of what "blight" means, but, rather than attempt to define it, let's look, instead, at how the concept of blight has been used as well as how this is important to our community.
In New Jersey, developer Donald Trump once convinced, or bullied, the city of Atlantic City to condemn and take the residence of an elderly widow so that he could build a limousine parking lot for his casino. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that the word, blight, was used somewhere in the proceedings.
In 1985 the city council of Las Vegas created a redevelopment agency with the idea of redesigning the city�s downtown area. John and Carol Pappas were Greek immigrants who had arrived in the United States in the 1940s and then later moved to Las Vegas, where they purchased a small shopping center. "When I die, this will be your retirement," John told Carol. John was a man who liked to plan for the future, but guess whose plans won out? There was nothing blighted about the Papas' property, but it was still condemned and taken from them under the excuse of blight, even though the city had previously promised that it would never use eminent domain in that way. And it was taken in the most underhanded of ways. Look it up.
Here's a direct quote from Property Rights in 21st Century America, by Timothy Sandefur: "In 1999 the city of Lancaster, California, condemned a 99 Cents Only store to transfer the property to Costco. There was already a Costco in that shopping mall, but the mega-retailer wanted to expand, so it persuaded the city to act. The property was not deteriorating, the company admitted, but it might in the future, and the city could prevent "future blight" by condemning the store and transferring it to Costco now." What a joke!
In 2005, the city of San Diego, California, took, among other properties, the Gran Havana Cigar Factory, a store that sold fine cigars and fancy coffee to upper-middle-class residents and tourists who enjoyed the Gaslamp District�s old-town setting. The store was frequented by cigar aficionados like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and there was nothing blighted about it, yet long-time owner Ahmad Mesdaq still lost his store and his livelihood so that a developer could build a hotel. The travesty was aided by California�s vague legal definition of "blight", something that is common to the Barnesville and Lamar County ordinances, as well.
Then, there are the cases of Susette Kelo versus the city of New London, Connecticut, which you have probably already heard about, and Frank Bugryn, of Bristol, Connecticut, who lost the 32 acre homestead, containing two houses and a Christmas tree farm, that his family had owned for more than 60 years when the city decided that the property would generate more tax revenue if it were owned by another private party.
There are enough of these kinds of stories to satisfy the curiosity of anyone who chooses to go farther, but this will suffice for our purpose. The taking of property from one private owner to give to another private owner, whatever the reason, amounts to government redistribution of property, or wealth, and that's a socialist practice that would make Karl Marx proud. Is that what America is really all about these days? Do you think that the Founders would approve? Is that what our community is all about? My answer to all of the above would be no.
All over this country, communities are being reshaped in the name of "smart growth", "smart planning", "sustainable growth", and/or "sustainable development". These are all just euphemisms for government planning of where we are to live and how we are to live. In order to do all of this reshaping, local governments must have powerful tools to use against property owners who might otherwise reasonably resist such attempts at government planning of their lives, so-called smart or otherwise. One of those tools, perhaps the most important tool, is the encoding of the concept of blight into the laws of local city and county governments.
So, what does all of this have to do with Barnesville and Lamar County? Just this - for the first time in more than 100 years, we have a Blighted Property Ordinance in the city of Barnesville. With the encouragement of Mayor Peter Banks, all five council members - Sammie Shropshire, Christopher Hightower, Anne Claxton, Mark Stone, and Neal Devane - voted for it. They're all good, principled people, but they're not perfect, and, in my opinion, they did the wrong thing this time. Unless I'm mistaken, the last three are all Republicans, and, if so, that clearly illustrates why Tea Party participants' frustration is not limited to Democrats.
And now, there is a similar ordinance about to be enacted by the Lamar County Commission because of 18 so-called "blighted" properties, of which all but two to four are already covered by existing law. Keep in mind that there are more than 9300 taxable properties in Lamar County, and two to four really problem properties is not nearly a large enough problem to justify a new law and certainly not one as broad as this. It was implied at the November commission meeting that this law will make it easier for the county to take property, and this was later stated to me directly by a Lamar County administrator. Is that what we want? And for such a tiny problem? Whether it will or will not make it easier for the county to take property, the ordinance represents a huge transfer of power from the people to government upon what seems to me to be just the flimsiest of excuses. It also seems to me that this is a time when we should be decreasing government's power at every level, including local, and not increasing it dramatically as this ordinance, if enacted, will.
The Founders knew, and stated often in their writings, that the unrestricted right to ownership of property is the single most important component of individual liberty. That right, however, has taken a terrible beating in recent years - mainly because of well-intentioned laws such as this. When it comes right down to it, we, the people, are the final guardians of our own liberty - not the mayor, not the City Council, not the County Commission, but we - and this is our chance to prove that we are up to the challenge.
There are three things that the commissioners can do regarding the proposed ordinance: They can enact the ordinance as it is, they can vote it down outright, or they can postpone it indefinitely, pending coming up with a better ordinance that targets the actual problem specifically. There are many people, including me, who would be glad to work with the commissioners on this, if that is their desire, but, if we allow this ordinance to become law as currently written, then the the kinds of abuses mentioned above will one day come to Lamar County, and our children and grand-children will have less freedom because of our inaction. However you may feel upon this issue, call your commissioner and let him or her know.
Here is a public email address where I can be reached if anyone would like to offer input upon this important matter:
[email protected] .