EXISTENCE IS IDENTITY

It’s a delight to be reporting good news today. From the Washington Times:

Alabama yesterday became the first state to enact new protections against local-government seizure of property allowed under a Supreme Court ruling that has triggered an explosive grass-roots counteroffensive across the country.

Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama Legislature, which would prohibit governments from using their eminent-domain authority to take privately owned properties for the purpose of turning them over to retail, industrial, office or residential developers.

Calling the high court’s June 23 ruling “misguided” and a “threat to all property owners,” Mr. Riley said, “A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and Alabama is leading it. [...] Alabamians can rest assured that their homes, farms, business and other private property are safe from being seized by government for a shopping center, or a factory, an office building or new residential development.”

I suppose Americans are not so easy to enslave after all—the miserable feelings of 5 incompetents in black robes notwithstanding. Long live the system of separation of powers.

As to that “property rights revolt” ... well, the good news goes on:

The backlash against the judicial ruling has not received much attention in the national press, [how can it—with the New York Marxist being the leading newspaper in the country?—ed.], although legislative leaders in more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional amendments to restrict local governments’ eminent-domain powers.

Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.

Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.

In addition, public support is being sought for state constitutional prohibitions in several states—Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas.

[...]

The property rights movement, which had been somewhat moribund before the court acted, has spawned what many political strategists expect to be a major issue in the 2006 election cycle.

A number of bills have been introduced in Congress where the issue is winning strong bipartisan support—from California Rep. Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, to Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a conservative Republican.

Polls show unusual unity on strengthening property rights. A Quinnipiac University poll, for example, found that 89 percent of voters in Connecticut want the legislature to limit eminent domain. A University of New Hampshire poll found that 93 percent of state residents were opposed to taking property for private development.

God Bless.

[Hat Tip: Foundation for Economic Education.]