Well, consider these two possibilities and decide which one is more likely:

1) A grand conspiracy against eminent domain reform brings two Democratic Governors to Rhode Island, or

2) Two Democratic Governors with presidential ambitions come to help elect a Democratic Governor in a very blue state a short ride away from New Hampshire.

Even those BLOGers who immediately see red when they see my name might concede that I have a point on this one - bonus points if they can respond without a long digression about unions (but feel free to complain that this is a "blue" state when you think our politics are "red"!)

I choose 2b!

2b) Two Democratic Governors with presidential ambitions (who represent a party that thinks so little of eminent domain reform that its Presidential contenders veto popular bills implementing meaningful reform) come to help elect a Democratic Governor (who didn’t think enough of eminent domain reform to shepherd his own bill through the legislature in a meaningful form) in a very blue state, a short ride away from New Hampshire.

My point is that it would be silly to expect a governor and party who are clearly not paying any attention to the eminent domain reform issue to make that issue a priority.

Well, you get the bonus points, but I think Fogarty agrees with you on this issue - I quickly found this on the web:

Fogarty Urges Support for Eminent Domain Bill

Says State Must Define Proper Use and Implement Safeguards

Lt. Governor Charles J. Fogarty, Chairman of the State’s Small Business Advocacy Council (SBAC), today urged support for a bill to define, limit and restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes in Rhode Island.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Michael J. McCaffrey, Fogarty called for support of S-2155 which was introduced at his request by Senator James Sheehan.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has given states the green light to take property to benefit private companies, but Rhode Island must be prudent in its application of eminent domain,” Fogarty wrote. “It is important now more than ever for Rhode Island to clearly define proper use of its eminent domain power and to implement safeguards to ensure that the use of this power does not unduly harm or adversely impact small businesses and private property owners.”

Fogarty has been a proponent for limiting the use of eminent domain since the Supreme Court Kelo vs. City of New London decision allowing extreme latitude to government. Last year, the SBAC passed a resolution introduced by Fogarty urging the Governor and the General Assembly to re-evaluate the use of eminent domain in the State of Rhode Island and to promulgate clear definitions and safeguards to ensure that eminent domain is used for its intended purposes.

“Just because we have the ability to do this, does not mean we should,” Fogarty said. “Homeowners and small business owners should have protections when it comes to their property. There is a large difference between using eminent domain for schools and roads and using it solely for the private gain of large corporations.”

Below is the text of the letter:

Dear Chairman McCaffrey:

I am writing in support of S-2155 which was introduced at my request by Senator James Sheehan. This bill would define, limit and restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given states the green light to take property to benefit private companies, but Rhode Island must be prudent in its application of eminent domain. It is important now more than ever for Rhode Island to clearly define proper use of its eminent domain power and to implement safeguards to ensure that the use of this power does not unduly harm or adversely impact small businesses and private property owners.

This legislation will clearly define proper use of eminent domain and implement safeguards to ensure that its use does not unduly harm or adversely impact small businesses and private property owners. I commend Senator Sheehan for his work on this measure and urge your favorable consideration of this legislation.

Sincerely, Charles J. Fogarty Lieutenant Governor

--end--

I don't belive any of this-Charlie is the anti-corruption candidate. Next thing you know people will be slandering Charlie by saying he is in bed with the public-trough unions or corrupt hacks like Murphy and Williamson. LOL

I have a small question:

Since all of you seemingly cannot stand eminent domain in any form, why has there been no mention of the Energy Policy ACT of 2005, passed by the GOP, which allows energy companies to engage in the practice on their own?

There's going to be an interesting, yet futile, battle at the upcoming Fall River, MA, City Council meeting. In another attempt to prevent LNG tankers from coming up the Bay, City Council President Whitty is going to try and take the land where the LNG plant is supposed to go. However, lawyers on both sides have pointed out that under the Act, only an energy company may proceed in this manner.

Therefore, is this kind of land grabbing ok for an energy company and not ok for a municipal government?

I'll be the first Republican to say that I think it is wrong for anyone or any "body" to TAKE property. If an company can offer a price acceptable to the current land owners, then they should be able to buy it. (e.g. I miss China Royal, but I'm sure the former owners were very happy to get a pile of cash from CVS)

As an aside, LNG is S A F E! It is just far easier politically to oppose it, than to defend it because of all the emotion. An LNG facility will help pull Fall River out of her generations-long depression and it will help us all stay warmer in New England for winters to come. The almost unanimous opposition to it is insane.

Nevertheless, NO land should ever be TAKEN from anyone against their will.

Mike,

Having Bob Walsh and Bobby Oliviera show up is pretty amusing isn't it?
Here to lend support to their outsider anti-corruption candidate I suppose. lol
Mr. Walsh I for one fully support the idea of eminent domain for our public school buildings.
The suffocating presence of lazy and bloated swine in these classrooms has made it impossible for our children to received a quality education.
Because it's all about the kids right Bob? lol

BobW,

The letter you provide is good supplemental information, but you can find more complete coverage by looking at the archives of this BLOG!

1. I actually praised Lieutenant Governor Fogarty’s original eminent domain reform bill, noting that it applied to a wider class of properties than Governor Carcieri’s reform proposal. See this March 3, 2006 post for the details.

2. But when the bill emerged from committee, it had been severely weakened. The express prohibition on using eminent domain on residential property for economic development had been removed. See this June 13, 2006 post for details.

Did LG Fogarty find the weakened bill acceptable? Or was he unable to work with the (Democratic controlled) legislature to keep the meaningful protections in there? Either way, it casts doubt on the proposition that a Democratic Governor + Democratic legislature are going to do much to reform ED.

BobbyO,

The good citizens of America are not objecting to “eminent domain in any form”. There is no broad objection to the use of eminent domain for true public use. (Even Susette Kelo says she would not have objected to the taking of her home, had the purpose been for true public use).

But people are objecting to the use of “eminent domain for economic development”, i.e. the taking of land by the government from a private owner to give to another private owner, because the government believes that the new owners will pay more in taxes.

I am unfamiliar with the details of the Fall River case, but…
1. It’s probably related to the fact that many ED laws have sections that define the activities of utility companies as public use.
2. An energy company can’t take the land. The government can take the land, and give it to an energy company.
3. A city council shouldn’t be able to seize people’s homes and interfere with their lives in order to impose its policy preferences on an entire city (although the land in this case might be commercial or industrial in nature).

Dear Andrew,

You bring up a couple of interesting things:

1.) We know that Don Carcieri cannot work with this Legislature. We also know that Charlie Fogarty can sometimes and sometimes not. Is half a loaf better than none?

2.)Would you have found the weakened bill acceptable just to "move the ball forward"?

3.) I suggest you re-read the Appropriate section of the Energy Act. I'll try to get you a link. The pass through provided for the energy companies is pretty amazing.

Andrew - thanks, and I will look into what happened.

Tim - no bonus points for you!