Harold Ford Jr: State Property Rights Proposal Goes Too Far

Let me be clear: I support the rights of homeowners and business owners. Our nation was founded in part on the fundamental right to own property, and government cannot take that right away arbitrarily.

That is why I voted in favor of a resolution co-sponsored by the chairman and the senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee expressing Congress' disapproval of the court's decision and our firm support of the rights of property owners.

The court's decision opens the door to the erosion of the sanctity of private property in our nation.
I do not want my home, business or farm - or that of my neighbors - to be confiscated by the government simply to put in a new venue for corporate profit.

However, the importance of economic rehabilitation in many of our urban and rural communities cannot and should not be ignored.

It is critical for the democratically elected officials in our communities to have the ability to seek, with support of property owners, the revitalization of local economies, the creation of much-needed jobs and the reversal of blight, crime or poverty in that community.

And that is where the Supreme Court's decision goes too far.

It does not denote the critical difference between rehabilitation with the consent of property owners versus development and redevelopment simply for corporate profit.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

Thankfully, though, the court's decision defers in the end to state law, leaving the fate of Tennessee communities in the right place - Tennessee, not Washington.

I voted against the Garrett amendment because it, like the Supreme Court decision, goes too far.

If the Garrett amendment becomes law, any initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that involves private development or investment, like Hope VI, could be put in jeopardy.

Just in Tennessee's four largest cities, Hope VI provided more than $230 million between 1993 and 2004 - $5.2 million in Chattanooga, $23.7 million in Knoxville, $113.7 million in Memphis and $88.9 million in Nashville.

I understand and support the need to clarify the Kelo decision. Unfortunately, the Garrett amendment was the wrong way to do it.

I am committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to develop a policy that makes sense.

HAROLD FORD U.S. Representative 9th District of Tennessee

From: Campaign email