Fighting eminent domain abuse

The South Carolina legislature has passed a proposed amendment to the state constitution to protect homeowners and business owners against eminent domain abuse. The amendment will appear on the November 2006 ballot. Among other things, the amendment would tighten the definition of "blight" so that the designation no longer means whatever city officials or developers say it means, but can be used only for properties that pose a threat to public health and safety.

The Louisiana legislature is also sending a constitutional amendment to the voters in November.

Here's one of the many reasons it matters: kids living in towns with homes targeted for 'redevelopment'. Guess what the kids talk about at school when their city is gunning for their home or the home of a friend, just so some unscrupulous private developer can build somebody else a house or put up a hotel, or something like that? (I think it's fair to call any developer who uses eminent domain to get what he wants "unscrupulous," don't you? I also think it's important to differentiate between folks like that and developers, contractors, and government officials who conduct themselves in an above-board manner.)

Or, how would you like to flee war-torn Cambodia and go to the United States, "a nation where citizens have the ability to keep what they've worked hard to own", only to be kicked out by your local government in your new homeland after spending almost twenty years building up a business and a customer base, apparently for no other reason than somebody else wants the property?

For success stories from around the country, where citizens have saved private property from the government's wrecking ball, see this list at Castle Coalition.