Fogarty’s Support from Opponents of Eminent Domain Reform Continues to be Strong
The Fogarty campaign’s parade of support from opponents of eminent domain reform continues. Last month, Governor Tom Vilsack, who vetoed an Iowa legislature bill that placed some mild restrictions on giving property seized through eminent domain to private developers, came to Rhode Island to campaign for Lieutenant Governor Fogarty. Now, the top item on the Fogarty campaign website is a message of support from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who also vetoed eminent domain reform legislation earlier this year. Richardson also made a fundraising appearance for the Lieutenant Governor in May.
Given that Lieutenant Governor Fogarty seems determined to bring as many Governors who have vetoed an eminent domain reform bill to Rhode Island as he can, (note to the Fogarty campaign: Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona may still be available for an appearance), and that his own record on eminent domain reform has been spotty at best, it is hard to believe that eminent domain reform will be a priority in a Fogarty administration.
Or perhaps Fogarty is a true believer in the approach to the problem favored by Governor Richardson — form a commission rather than take action. This is from the Associated Press report of Richardson’s veto…
[Governor Richardson] promised to create a task force to study the eminent domain issue and propose legislation “to appropriately protect private property from condemnation that is geared solely at private commercial development.One last question: If Lieutenant Governor Fogarty couldn’t work with the legislature to get a simple eminent domain reform bill passed this year, how does he plan to get his term-limits proposal through the legislature?
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 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
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!