Stealing Land in Montgomery, Alabama

by Liberty and Power

Will the current outrage in Montgomery provoke a modern civil rights movement against eminent domain through the back door? It certainly should.

On Wednesday in Montgomery, developer Jim Peera displayed this map as part of his testimony at a public forum of the State Advisory Committee (which I chair) of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The pins show buildings demolished by the city of Montgomery in 2008. As you can see, the vast majority are concentrated in one area which just so happens to be heavily black and low-income. Ironically, the area included the apartment of Rosa Parks.

Typically, the city will designate a building as"blighted" or a"nuisance," sometimes using a subjective and arbitrary standard, as in the Jimmy McCalll case. It then bills the owner for the demolition costs. Because many of these owners are poor, they will either have to abandon their land or sell it at a high discount to either a private developer or the city. Even when they can afford demolition, taxes, and other costs, the city has repeatedly destroyed the current or best use of the land by changing the zoning designation to single-family housing. The result is the same: abandonment of the land or sale at bargain-basement prices.

Unlike conventional eminent domain, the owner under eminent domain through the back door has no right to compensation from the city, even in theory.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Rick Croley - 5/4/2009

Thanks for the response. I don't live in Alabama but the rest of my family does. After hearing my Dad's stories about the county he lives in, the one I shared is just one of a hundred, I assumed that what we are seeing is just a new, slicker type of encroachment by governments of every size on property rights. Do you think the Kelo decision helped fuel these new outrages?

That the poor will be the most adversely affected is to be expected. These governments are doing what they always do; responding to the desires of those with the best political connections -at least, for the most part.

The really sad truth though is that this is happening not only with the implicit support of the majority of citizens -they keep on voting the same corrupt people back into office every election cycle - but often because of citizens' explicit demands. The neighbor who turned in the gentleman with the scrapyard is one example.

This might just be the unfortunate culmination of a process which begins by separating a citizenry from it classical liberal roots, which outlined both rights and duties, and ends with them having an exaggerated understanding of only their own rights. Government then becomes the cudgel with which they bash their fellow citizens.

David T. Beito - 5/4/2009

I am using civil rights as short-hand for constitutional rights, particularly the rule that property can only be taken for public use (literally defined) and for just compensation.

It is my hope that this new civil rights movement will trascend racial boundaries. I also hope that participants in this movement will not get diverted by endless debates (that can never be settled) on the role played by race, economics, urban planning, and other factors.

Having said that, it is worth noting that the poor in Montgomery (who are also more likely to be black) are suffering the most under eminent domain through the back door.

Croley, Richard - 5/3/2009

This behavior is going on state-wide. My father, who lives in north Alabama, told me a year or so ago that the county commissioners where he lives passed an ordinance they called “home rule”. This gave county inspectors the power to come onto people’s properties and issue fines if they found the property to be “unsightly”. The inspectors were given wide latitude even as to how this was defined.

One can easily see how this could, and probably will, be abused. My dad told me he knew a man who had already been fined. This gentleman had run an auto scrapyard on his property for decades with no complaints. A new neighbor, who lived over a quarter of a mile away, complained to the county that the scrap yard was an eyesore that interferred with his view. The county inspector came and issued a fine. The man who owns the scrapyard will now have to seek legal aid or pay the fine, and maybe close his business.

I’m wondering if you are implying this is racially motivated or just more power seeking by the cities, counties and state of Alabama? Maybe I'm just confused because of the other posts tying this to the civil rights movement.