Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack arguably made his poorest political decision last Friday, when he vetoed a bill that would have strengthened the rights of property owners. House File 2351 provided for new restrictions on governments using eminent domain to condemn private property for economic-development projects, whether public or private.
House File (HF) 2351 passed with impressive bipartisan support, with votes of 89 to 5 in the House and 43 to 6 in the Senate. The bill was introduced in response to last year's landmark Kelo v. New London ruling by the Supreme Court, giving the city of New London, Connecticut, the power to seize properties and pass them on to private developers for economic-development projects. In the past, condemnation was only allowed in cases where the land was for a "public use" such as a public-works project; the Supreme Court enlarged the definition of "public use" to encompass any project that could be perceived to have a public benefit.
Simply put, governmental bodies in Connecticut can seize land parcels and homes of individual property owners and hand them over to private developers for their own economic purposes. In this case, New London gave an entire residential neighborhood to a private developer for a commercial shopping district. To add insult to injury, throughout the proceedings, the developer was not required to produce any design concepts or specifications that would illustrate the project's merit, or demonstrate any concrete level of aesthetic commitment, let alone actual value for which they should be held accountable. Both the city council and the court's decision to forcibly remove families from their homes required nothing more from developers than their intent.
Even though HF 2351 was a Republican initiative, it passed with unusually broad bipartisan support, suggesting that both sides of the aisle in Iowa take property rights seriously, and are willing to combine forces to protect those rights against governmental intrusion, especially for the purposes of enriching private interests, who can't or won't get the job done on their own.
The Iowa Chamber Alliance, along with the Bettendorf Chamber of Commerce and DavenportOne, came out in support of the governor's veto last week. Dues-paying members of these respective organizations must now ask themselves whether their interests as small-business owners are truly being represented.
| "I have to say it gave me some satisfaction to see DavenportOne finally out itself as the liberal fund-sucker that it is." |
I have to say it gave me some satisfaction to see DavenportOne finally out itself as the liberal fund-sucker that it is. In response to HF 2351's overwhelming legislative approval, D1 President Dan Huber was reported expressing his disappointment that local governments would face greater obstacles in acquiring private property because of the new restrictions, making economic development more difficult in Iowa's already uncompetitive business climate.
In other words, DavenportOne will lose some of its bargaining cachet (derived primarily from its unprecedented control of Davenport's city administration, mayor, and five aldermen) when it comes to economic development. What Huber might want to consider is that the uncompetitive business climate exists precisely because of the competitive advantage the special interests have here in Davenport - putting the rest of us (consumers and developers alike) at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
DavenportOne is a donkey in elephant's clothing, pretending to advocate the conservative agenda while simultaneously supporting agendas that are clear contradictions of the same. The protection of individual property rights is at the core of the conservative mission, but D1 believes that government knows best how to allocate property for land "use." It doesn't get more liberal than that.
Perhaps members of DavenportOne should evaluate their financial participation in an organization that prefers public jurisdiction to private rights when it comes to land use. Further, Davenport taxpayers are one of the largest, if not the largest, contributor to the recent D1 Initiative at $500,000. Among other goals, the D1 Initiative provides funding for D1 to lobby local and state governments. Certainly residents should insist that no more of our tax dollars be given to lobbyists, let alone an organization whose political bias conflicts with our basic rights.
=================
Iowa Farm Bureau's President Craig Lang's response to Vilsack's veto.
=================
Local Legislators' Votes on HF 2351
The Iowa House voted twice on the bill -- once on its passage and once on a subsequent amendment passed by the Senate. Representatives Joe Hutter, Jim Lykam, Jamie Van Fossen, and Jim Van Fossen voted for both the bill and its Senate amendment. Representative Cindy Winckler voted against the bill but voted for the Senate amendment.
In the Senate,
all three local legislators -- Frank Wood, Joe Seng, and Maggie Tinsman
-- voted for the eminent-domain law.
