Category Archives: Correspondence

Rep. Moran’s office sent a form letter response to my Nov. 4 letter regarding eminent domain. Looks like the congressman and I will have to agree to disagree on this one:

November 21, 2005

Dear Mr. Young,

I thank you for contacting me regarding the Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 4128).

As you know, H.R. 4128 was crafted in response to the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision. That ruling, in deference to state government, affirmed Connecticut law that authorized local governments to offer due compensation to private landowners and transfer taken land to private enterprise to promote carefully considered private redevelopment plans that serve an inherent “public purpose.”

H.R. 4128 is the hurried reaction by some in Congress that was rushed to the floor of the House of Representatives without the benefit of thorough legislative hearings. As proposed, the bill would withhold federal economic development funding from any state or locality that takes private property for the purpose of private economic development While I understand the legitimate concerns this legislation seeks to address, the legislative remedy was so broadit would have undermined state and local authority to undertake legitimate eminent domain activities such as road and transit improvements, affordable housing developments, and server line upgrades. In all 3 instances, localities would not be able to join in public-private partnerships to offer these public goods.

I offered a compromise amendment that would clarify that eminent domain that would be outlawed only in instances where private economic gain was the primary objective. unfortunately, this amendment was rejected and the was passed the these wide sweeping provisions.

The United States is unmatched in its value and protection of private property rights, and I intend to uphold that tradition. I could not support legislation, however, that will eliminate local flexibility. As the former mayor of Alexandria, I understand that local governments need tools to develop regions where the free market has failed. If the citizenry objects to these local decisions, it is up to them to hold their elected officials accountable.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important matter.

Yours truly,
Jim Moran

Yesterday the House passed a bill curbing the use of eminent domain in federally funded projects (H.R. 4128). Better still, it passed by a whopping 376-38. The Senate will take it up early next year. Surprisingly, the bill actually follows federalist principles and lets state and local governments make their own rules where they have jurisdiction. Good news all around.

Unfortunately, my Congressman, Rep. Jim Moran (VA-8), voted the wrong way. In fact, he also put forth an unsuccessful amendment to gut the bill and made quite the impassioned speech on the floor.

I wrote Rep. Moran’s office a short note. I encourage you to do the same if your representative also voted the wrong way.

Representative Moran,

I was disappointed by your vote on yesterday’s eminent domain bill (H.R. 4128). I appreciate your federalism concerns, and I am glad the bill does not touch projects that do not receive federal funding. Such projects are properly state and local issues. But for projects that do involve the federal government, you passed on a golden opportunity to affirm your commitment to property rights.

This issue is not about tax revenues or urban development. It is about a basic principle of civilized conduct: it’s wrong to take other peoples’ stuff. Whether the thief is an individual or a government is irrelevant; stealing is still wrong. Exceptions can be made for public goods such as highways or schools, and courts have long recognized that. But the Kelo v. New London decision went further and essentially legalized theft from one private party to another. H.R. 4128 is an attempt to right that wrong, and I am sorry you decided not to play a part in it.
Thanks for your time,

Ryan Young

As a disclaimer, I do not believe roads and schools to be true public goods. The private sector is perfectly capable of providing both, and where allowed, has a better record than the government.

A list of the 38 who voted “nay” is here.