Who Knew Idaho Was a Blue State?

There’s not much to be said about the latest of Hyman’s many, many returns to the Kelo case and the issue of eminent domain. This time, he’s mentioning that some states in the recent election voted to strengthen protections against seizure of lands, while other didn’t. He comically attributes the defeat of such measures to mobilization of urban voters, which might make sense if one of the states where eminent domain initiatives went down to defeat wasn’t Idaho (that bastion of big city, big government liberalism).

Actually, the key to Hyman’s comments comes when he mentions that environmental groups lobbied strongly against further limiting eminent domain.
The reason for this is simple. While people like Hyman portray eminent domain as an issue of protecting individual family homes, the much larger goal is to limit government regulation of land use, including restrictions on pollution. He wants to appeal to our fear of Big Brother taking our house away in order to protect private corporations from having limitations placed on their ability to befoul the air, water, and land on which they stand—air, water, and land that act as conduits for whatever pestilence they unload into it, bringing it to our own front door.

That’s all I’ll say on that for now. I’d refer you to this well-written article on the true motivations and sources of the eminent domain legislation initiatives that populated state ballots. It’s what Hyman doesn’t want you to know.

And that’s The Counterpoint.