Over the next few weeks, I'm going to begin to examine the pillars of each of the Mayoral candidates platforms on this blog. Ironically enough, our mayoral election is April Fools Day, but we need to make sure that we don't vote like fools. The two candidates are Jill Didier, and Jerry Stepaniak, and I will be examining their platforms in these posts. As I looked at each of the websites, I was struck by the same typical vague political language that could mean any one of a dozen things. However, one thing immediately struck me as being potentially disastrous for our community, and that was this statement by Jerry Stephaniak:
Expand the tax base by actively pursuing quality redevelopment of major, high visibility properties.
...
Target, acquire and remediate blighted properties to strengthen the community and uphold the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods.
For those unfamiliar with the reference in the title of the post, Kelo v. City of New London was a case before the United Supreme Court where they upheld the right of the City of New London to transfer property from one private owner to another using eminent domain, and not for a public purpose. My personal opinion is that these takings are unconstitutional according to the 5th Amendment, though for reasons that I will never understand, the court majority found the opposite.
Nationwide, there were two general reactions to this ruling. In some areas there was such an uproar of disapproval, that many states and communities enacted laws which restricted the ability of governments to take property through eminent domain. Though in reality, many of those laws are merely window dressing around already liberal eminent domain laws, since they still depend on using the standard of "blighted" to take property. The issue comes in because most communities define "blight" so broadly as to be nearly meaningless. In other parts of the nation, communities saw this ruling as a green light to begin broader eminent domain takings for purposes of raising tax bases, and in my corrupt dealings, giving cheap property to developers who had connections in city hall.
And with all this in mind, when I read Mr. Stephaniak's plank in which he promises to acquire blighted properties and "uphold property values", it takes on a very dangerous twist. It sounds to me like Mr. Stephaniak doesn't respect our basic constitutional property rights. Even Jill Didier has the following on her website:
Jill Didier supports design standards for North Avenue, State Street, and other major corridors; encouraging thoughtful development that expands the city’s tax base while preserving its character.
Wauwatosa needs an updated vision—a vision that captures our vibrancy and furthers our potential. Proactive leadership in the mayor’s office will ensure that redevelopment occurs in a well thought out manner with neighborhood involvement. As mayor, Jill Didier will use the comprehensive plan and input received from the neighborhoods to develop a vision for each area of focus. Working together,we can grow the tax base while preserving our community’s character.
This is even more vague, and doesn't use the same dangerous trigger words that Stephaniak's website uses. To be clear, I am not charging either candidate with any type of corruption, or shady dealings of any kind. However, a policy of liberal eminent domain would be disastrous to this community, and would lead to corruption in our fair community.
I would love to see clarification from both candidates regarding their stances on eminent domain, with as much specific language as possible. I would also ask that both candidates sign a pledge stating that, if elected, they will not allow eminent domain takings for the purposes of transferring property from one private entity to another.
To find out more about eminent domain abuse nationwide, visit the Castle Coalition.
