As battles over eminent domain (or what some politicians have shortened to ED) rage on across the country, I have made it a bit of a crusade to see what Kentucky's own lawmakers are doing to try to prevent cases like we have seen in Connecticut, Florida, New York--the list goes on.

I previously wrote an article regarding my communications with State Sen. Gary Tapp's office. While his office has been very nice in providing the bills that have been proposed to the KY General Assembly regarding eminent domain, as I mentioned in the article, some of the wording in the bill leaves several terms open to interpretation. I eagerly await his office's explanation. As it becomes available, I will post it here for all interested.

In the interim, I have also been in contact with State Rep. David Floyd of Bardstown, who has been more than forthcoming in his responses--for which Mr. Right Opinion has the utmost respect. Forthrightness in a politician, now who can resist respecting that???

He has advised me that he is familiar with both the House and Senate versions of the bills to which I alluded in my previous article. He also agreed that the wording of those bills leaves a loophole for those who would wish to circumvent the true meaning of the bill?s intention, and use Kentucky's would-be-newly-defined eminent domain laws just as they are being abused in Riviera Beach, FL.

Rep. Davis has assured me that he is currently penning a bill that would close any loopholes to the Kentucky Eminent Domain issue. I look forward to receiving a copy of that, and reporting it to you first--right here at Mr. Right Opinion?s portal to information (a bit dramatic, I know).

Rep. Davis emailed me a story about a fictitious family which could potentially lose their home due to vaguely worded eminent domain law. Truly a tragic scenario which, unfortunately, is being played out in real-life far too often.

Hopefully Rep. Davis will not mind me disclosing at least part of his email, as I feel it truly shows his position on this vital issue. He states, "The right to own and protect property is basic to freedom and the rule of law. Kentucky?s Bill of Rights tells us that acquiring and protecting property is our 'inherent and inalienable' right. Governments (city, county, state) cannot do anything that would violate this right."

He continues, "But consider that we also grant to governments the power to condemn your home and take it away from you. This is the power of 'Eminent Domain' to take private property for public use, while providing just compensation for the taking."

"Roads and schools are generally accepted 'public use' projects. As a people we haven't seriously objected to the government's use of Eminent Domain for such undertakings. However, this summer the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote in its Kelo v. New London decision, affirmed that the city of New London, CT could use the takings clause to condemn private homes. But this was not for roads or schools. This taking was for private 'economic development.' New London actually delegated its eminent domain authority to a private businessman, who would build hotels, condos, and office buildings in place of the private homes that he took away."

"So we see that governments are using their power to strip private property rights from citizens, claiming that it's for our own good: more development equals more tax revenue equals more government to do good things for you. Those who exercise this authority are sincere in their efforts. But as C.S. Lewis said, 'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.'"

Now, this is not a campaign stump for Rep. Davis. However, it does give us a feel for the kind of politicians which we want making decisions for our state. Politicians who will uphold the Constitution and do what is right for "We The People."
I certainly hope that our state legislators will become of the same mindset as this Congressman. As I said, I look forward to seeing the legislation which he will propose to protect Kentucky's citizens from the abuse of the unconstitutional, liberal interpretation of eminent domain as recently handed down in a divided (5-4) U.S. Supreme Court decision.

More to come...

(Ms. Susan Rambo is a lady from Sen. Tapp?s office from whom I received several emails regarding efforts to protect private property in Kentucky in light of recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in light of cases of American?s across the country losing their land to greedy politicians who are practicing what has been called ?reverse Robinhood-ism.? That is, stealing from the poor to give to the rich. I shall send this in email format to Sen. Tapp as well.

Following my story on what is being done in Indiana to combat this unconstitutional practice, I contacted my own state officials to see what is being done to prevent the same from happening here in my beloved Bluegrass.

If anyone is interested in seeing the information I have obtained, and links to the bills which she sent me, leave a comment, and I will try to respond as quickly as possible. Thanks--Mike)

Ms. Rambo:

In reading the information which you sent me regarding HB 108, I am confused on a number of levels, as my knowledge of legalese is fairly limited, so please forgive my ignorance when it shows.

Obviously a layman's translation would be very helpful, but I dare not ask you to perform such an extensive and time-consuming task such as that, as you would likely never correspond with me again!

Under Section I, subsection 3 of KRS 416.540 TO 416.670, it states the following:

3) (a) It is a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain for
the acquisition of property:
1. For public ownership and control by the public entity; and
2. For a public purpose.
(b) It is not a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, unless acquisition of property for private ownership or control is:
1. For a public purpose; and
2. Specifically and expressly approved in accordance with Section 2 of this Act.
"Private ownership or control" shall be liberally construed to prevent the use of long-term leases, options to purchase, and other mechanisms intended to defeat the purpose of this section, which is to limit the acquisition of property by eminent domain when it is primarily for the benefit and use of private entities.
(4) The authorization of the use of eminent domain proceedings to take or damage property is an exclusive power and function of the Commonwealth, and a public entity shall not exercise the power of eminent domain except as provided in this section.
In Section 1, subsection 3 (a), it defines a ?qualified public use? as being ?1. For public ownership and control by the public entity; and 2. For a public purpose.?

Subsection 3(b) states: ?It is not a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, unless (emphasis added) acquisition of property for private ownership or control is: ?1. For a public purpose; and 2. Specifically and expressly approved in accordance with Section 2 of this Act.?

In my minds eye, I see this as a loophole for the government to take private property for the purpose of generating tax revenue. All that is required in Section 2 of this Act is that : 1. If a public entity desires to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, the public entity shall, prior to any taking by eminent domain, submit a description of the property to be acquired, along with the public purpose behind said acquisition, to the voters within its jurisdiction for their approval or rejection; and that 2. The public entity shall advertise that a referendum is to be held on acquisition of the property by eminent domain and the proposed private persons or organizations expected to benefit from the taking. The notice shall be published not more than sixty (60) days nor less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the election in the manner specified in KRS Chapter 424 for public notices.

Basically, as I see it, following that, all that is required is for a majority of the voters in an affected area to approve the proposal. It has been my experience that a great portion of voters are informed only about presidential, U.S. Congressional, and some state elections---and many of those are only informed (perhaps persuaded would be a better word) by one or two lines which they heard in a commercial. Many certainly are NOT informed about votes that would impact local issues.

While voter ignorance is unfortunate, this is truly the fair and American way to pass legislation of this variety. It is the voter?s inherent duty to educate him/herself about the goings-on at all levels of government. I applaud the sponsors of this bill for this part of the proposal.

However, where I have trouble is in Section 1(b) 1. Where the language states ?a public purpose.? What troubles me is the fact that, if a bill is passed inadvertently, or even knowingly, by a majority, ?public purpose? covers a lot of ground.

As we have seen in the recent eminent domain case in Florida, ?public purpose? is being defined by local officials as a broader tax base. Using this verbiage is part of a multi-pronged attack which aims to displace what is described as 6,000 homeowners in one community there.

I would like to see ?public purpose? defined in this bill as ?excluding providing the Commonwealth or the involved municipality with higher tax revenues.? In America, a home- or business-owners property is a sacred and Constitutional right which should not be allowed to be taken from him for the sole purpose of giving it to another entity which may be able to provide more tax revenue for the community or state.

I further would appreciate it if you could explain to me whether ALL sections of Kentucky?s eminent domain law must be met. If not, would all subsections of a particular section be enough to allow for eminent domain, or would only particular subsections of the law be enough to ?condemn? a property be sufficient for the Commonwealth to step in and take the land at issue?

Under Section 4 of the new Act, under the portion ?It is hereby declared,? subsection (12), it is stated that: ?(12) That the clearance, replanning, reconstruction and rehabilitation of such areas may be a qualified[ are] public use," as defined in Section 1 of this Act,[uses and purposes] for which private property may be acquired??

As previously mentioned, ?public use? covers a lot of ground; some verification of the definition of this term would be greatly helpful here. Subsection (15) further states that ?(15) That the protection and promotion of the health, safety, morals, welfare and reasonable comfort of the citizens of such cities and the state are matters of public concern;.? Could this not be very subjective according to the beliefs of those living in the effected area?

Under Section 6, subsections 15 and 16, it is declared that: ?(15) That the protection and promotion of the health, safety, morals, welfare and reasonable comfort of the citizens of such cities and the state are matters of public concern; and
(16) That the necessity in the public interest for the provisions hereinafter enacted is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination?

While I find subsection 15 admirable, we are once again left with the obscure language brought to the table by subsection 16. In particular are the words ?necessity in the public interest .? Could ?public interest,? while maybe not in this legislative session, be, in future legislatures, be construed as the increase of tax revenue, thereby forcing residents and business owners from their property? Or do BOTH both subsections 15 and 16 have to be met?

Overall. Everything I have read regarding HB 108 sounds like it is looking out for the welfare of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. However, I would really appreciate it if you would clarify the questions I have raised in this letter.

Furthermore, I would appreciate your feedback on suggestion I have made regarding the definition term ?public purpose? as being one that would not encompass the mere fact that it would benefit the Commonwealth or local municipality financially through broader tax bases.

Thank you so much for your time and effort in regard to this matter.

Sincerely,
Michael A. Minton

Although I know that at this point, I do not have a huge readership, for those who have visited Mr. Right Opinion for news and commentary, I would like to apologize for my prolonged absence.

I hope you will find my excuses acceptable, and come back to see me soon. Well, here it is: I am divorced, and am fortunate enough to have my two daughters visit me EVERY weekend (I cannot thank God enough for this honor, when I see men struggle with seeing their children once or twice a month). But a few weeks ago, they developed pneumonia.

Now, when I DO have my girls, there is just no way I am going to sit at my computer and research and/or write articles. Couple that with the fact that I have been struggling with pneumonia myself, and I hope you will understand why I have been mute on my site for the past couple weeks. Your understanding is GREATLY appreciated!

My plan has been to post at least two articles a week to keep people informed on the absurdities and abuses of both the liberals in our country (the ACLU being a prime target), as well as the abuses of our government upon its own citizens. Once in a while, just to show I am not a ?bad news bear,? I also plan to praise folks who are doing good for our overwhelmingly Christian nation.

So, again, I ask that you keep coming back to see the latest right opinion.

Thanks, and God bless,
Mike Minton
Mr. Right Opinion

The followin story os from one of my favorite places on the net, the Stop The ACLU Coalition. Please visit them at http://stoptheaclu.org.

Also, I am the Kentucky State Coordinator for the Stop The Aclu Coalition, so if you live in KY, and might be interested in being a County Coordinator, or help in any way, please see the website for details on how you can help drive these anti-American, freedom-hating people out of business.

Thanks, Mike

NYCLU Loses In NYC Subway Bag Search Case
by Jay on 12-02-05 @ 9:46 pm Filed under War On Terror, News

In a victory for National Security, and the American citizen not to be blown up, a judge ruled today against the ACLU, and for NYC Subways in their effort to protect their citizens.

NEW YORK (Reuters ) - A federal judge ruled on Friday that police had a constitutional right to randomly search passengers? bags on the New York City subway to deter terrorist attacks.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ruled the searches were an effective and appropriate means to fight terrorism, and constituted only a ?minimal intrusion? of privacy.

?The risk to public safety of a terrorist bombing of New York City?s subway system is substantial and real,? Berman wrote in his opinion.

?The need for implementing counter-terrorism measures is indisputable, pressing, ongoing and evolving.?

Random bag searches began on July 22 after a second set of bomb attacks on London?s transit system.

In a statement, Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the ruling, calling bag searches a ?reasonable precaution? that police would continue to take.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), which had sued to stop the searches, plans to appeal, Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. She said the ?unprecedented? bag search program violated a basic freedom.

Well of course they plan to appeal, they wouldn?t want common sense to prevail! I understand the ACLU?s concern on this. No one wants to live in a police state. However, I think they are completely overzealous in this. The majority of people do not mind being searched if it means they will live another day. Besides, the ACLU would have another fit if we were to try to implement profiled searches. And they have even proven through their lawsuit in Tampa against Raymond James Stadium that they are against searches across the board. The irony is that on their own building they have a sign that says you may be subject to search upon entering. The ACLU have twisted a legitimate attempt to protect NY?s citizens into a scare tactic method completely overexaggerated. Why can?t they see what most people can? The threat of being blown up is a greater risk, than the far fetched idea of a police state.