The Volokh Conspiracy - What the Next President Can do to Protect Property Rights:

Like the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro (known in DC libertarian circles as "the other Ilya," though he would probably say that I'm the other one), I have just published an op ed in National Review Online. Mine is about the role of property rights in the presidential election. Unfortunately, none of the candidates have given this issue the attention it deserves:

The Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2005 generated a massive political backlash. Kelo v. City of New London endorsed the condemnation of private property for transfer to other private owners in order to promote "economic development." Polls showed that 80 to 90 percent of the public opposed such takings. Oddly, however, we've heard almost nothing of this broadly popular issue from the presidential campaigns. . .

Economic-development takings often transfer property from the poor and politically weak to politically powerful interest groups, such as developers. They also undermine economic growth in the community far more than they promote it. Often, they destroy preexisting enterprises that have greater value to the community than the ones established by the post-condemnation owners. Since World War II, some 3 to 4 million Americans have lost their homes to urban renewal and economic development takings. . .

The lack of campaign focus on the issue is unfortunate. There is a great deal that the next president could do to protect property rights. First and foremost, he or she can appoint federal judges who take constitutional property rights seriously. . .

The president can also help protect property rights through the legislative process. In 2005, the House of Representatives passed the Property Rights Protection Act, which would have denied federal economic-development funds to local governments that engage in Kelo-style takings. Unfortunately, the PRPA died in the Senate, and is now stuck in committee in the House. Strong presidential support could well force its passage . . .

Finally, the next president could strengthen President Bush's June 2006 executive order on eminent domain . . .

The op ed draws on my academic article on post-Kelo eminent domain reform, currently under submission to law reviews.

	[Ilya Somin, April 2, 2008 at 2:54pm] Trackbacks What the Next President Can do to Protect Property Rights: Like the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro (known in DC libertarian circles as "the other Ilya," though he would probably say that I'm the other one), I have just published an op ed in National Review Online. Mine is about the role of property rights in the presidential election. Unfortunately, none of the candidates have given this issue the attention it deserves: The Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2005 generated a massive political backlash. Kelo v. City of New London endorsed the condemnation of private property for transfer to other private owners in order to promote "economic development." Polls showed that 80 to 90 percent of the public opposed such takings. Oddly, however, we've heard almost nothing of this broadly popular issue from the presidential campaigns. . . Economic-development takings often transfer property from the poor and politically weak to politically powerful interest groups, such as developers. They also undermine economic growth in the community far more than they promote it. Often, they destroy preexisting enterprises that have greater value to the community than the ones established by the post-condemnation owners. Since World War II, some 3 to 4 million Americans have lost their homes to urban renewal and economic development takings. . . The lack of campaign focus on the issue is unfortunate. There is a great deal that the next president could do to protect property rights. First and foremost, he or she can appoint federal judges who take constitutional property rights seriously. . . The president can also help protect property rights through the legislative process. In 2005, the House of Representatives passed the Property Rights Protection Act, which would have denied federal economic-development funds to local governments that engage in Kelo-style takings. Unfortunately, the PRPA died in the Senate, and is now stuck in committee in the House. Strong presidential support could well force its passage . . . Finally, the next president could strengthen President Bush's June 2006 executive order on eminent domain . . . The op ed draws on my academic article on post-Kelo eminent domain reform, currently under submission to law reviews.