It looks like a safe that bet the Alaska Legislature will soon send the governor a bill for his signature generally banning state and municipal governments from using eminent domain to obtain private property for someone else's private ownership and use. Last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing such practices in limited circumstances worried Alaska lawmakers, who are moving quickly this session to make sure it never happens here.
Good idea to restrict the use of eminent domain for private benefit; bad idea to impose a blanket prohibition. Government should not take one person's home and transfer the property for private use in the name of economic and community development unless it is absolutely, positively necessary for an overwhelming greater public good. Using eminent domain -- paying a fair value to take property against the owner's wishes -- has a place in building new schools, roads and other public uses, and it should never be abused solely for the financial gain of private developers.
The legal process already provides safeguards to prevent such abuses, allowing property owners to state their case in front of a judge. States and cities could improve those safeguards by writing tougher standards into law, by banning eminent domain for economic development unless the public retains an ownership stake in the project. But the bill before Alaska lawmakers goes too far in eliminating the option under any circumstances. It sets up the possibility that someday a worthy project, such as a town center or commercial-public joint venture, could be stymied by a lone holdout who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to move.
Unfortunately, the legislation also goes too far in banning some -- but not all -- use of eminent domain to acquire property for public recreation projects. It would prohibit state and municipal governments from buying private property against the owners' wishes if the parcel includes the owner's home or is within 250 feet of the home.
The legislation allows governments to buy such private land for recreation so long as the property owner consents, which everyone hopes would be the case for needed recreation projects. For those cases where the owner does not want to sell, no court could force the sale.
There is a worry, however, that a day will come when the state or some city will be ready to proceed with a worthy recreation project -- a park, an ATV or ski trail, a picnic or camping site -- that could benefit thousands of people, only to be stymied by a stubborn property owner who refuses to accept a fair offer and who delights in stopping the project.
House Bill 318 passed the House with just two no votes and with more than half the chamber signed on as co-sponsors. The measure is scheduled for its first Senate hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. There's still time to allow some exceptions to the overly tight restrictions proposed on eminent domain.
BOTTOM LINE: Limiting the use of eminent domain is good; let's hope it doesn't turn out to be too much of a good thing.