Well, I’m not but the American Institute of Architects is. Back in February I recounted an e-mail that I got from this organization that gladly accepts my dues but I don’t often agree with as far as political policies go. For example, they’ve swallowed the man-made global warming Kool-Aid bigtime.
Be that as it may, every so often they solicit input on their position statements, and the occasion of my February post was to talk about my input on one the group penned on eminent domain. Apparently the rest of the membership also had objections because yesterday I got my weekly e-mail from the AIA and part of it was to gather comments on a revised version. For ease of comparison, here are the original and revised versions:
Original:
The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. State and local governments must ensure that eminent domain laws do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.
Revised:
The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain can be a necessary and appropriate tool for government to secure land for the reasonable implementation of publicly owned projects. Only under very special and unique circumstances should that tool be used for projects that will ultimately revert to private ownership. In these circumstances, eminent domain should be considered a tool of last resort and only be applied if there is a clear and compelling public need and benefit demonstrated and supported through an open, broad-based, and transparent community planning process. In all cases, eminent domain should be applied in ways that fairly consider the value of existing land uses and communities, while respecting individual citizens’ rights, and community history.
It’s much closer to what I’d like to see, and I think all I’d add at first read is the phrase “private property” to the last sentence so it reads, “…while respecting individual citizens’ private property rights, and community history.”
While I’m on the subject, it also gives me an opportunity to talk about a group that was in the news quite a bit when the Kelo ruling was handed down in 2005 but has faded from the limelight since. As a part of the Institute for Justice umbrella, the Castle Coalition is a group dedicated to fighting abuses of eminent domain by government. They also have prepared a report card detailing which states have the best eminent domain laws and which lag behind – 28 states have “passing” grades with Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota all earning a solid “A”. Here in Maryland we rate a “D” while just over the line in Delaware they get a “D-“. Delaware’s low grade places them with California, Tennessee, and Vermont at the bottom of the barrel.
As a person who gets his paycheck indirectly from a whole host of developers wishing to improve their properties, generally I’m in favor of few and reasonable restrictions and regulations on property development. I think the AIA position I originally pegged as “property owners be damned” certainly was changed because of input from forwardthinking architects and associated professionals like me, and maybe we’ll get them next to advocate more aggressively for a position on eminent domain reform similar to that of the Castle Coalition’s. Given their pattern of political donations, though, I’m not holding my breath.
