Questions DPVA's Opposition to Virginia Property Rights Amendment
HARRISONBURG—Today,
Senator Mark Obenshain blasted the Democratic Party of Virginia for their
opposition to the Virginia Property Rights Amendment, which will enshrine the
right of private property in the Constitution and protect against eminent
domain abuse.
At
their most recent meeting, the Democratic Party of Virginia’s State Central
Committee adopted a resolution
in
opposition to the Virginia Property Rights Amendment, and affirming the Party’s
support for involuntary takings which transfer property from one private party
to another.
“The
simple principle that the government can’t take your property for anything but
a true public use is one embraced by the vast majority of Virginians,” said
Obenshain. “In their opposition to the Virginia Property Rights Amendment,
Virginia Democratic leaders have positioned themselves well outside the
mainstream.”
“I
don’t care who you are: Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Mainstream
Virginia voters of all political stripes believe that private property is
important enough to be protected by our Constitution, a point apparently lost
on the Democratic Party brass,” Obenshain added.
The
DPVA resolution claims both that the Amendment is merely a restatement of
current law and that it “will lock into the Virginia Constitution a prohibition
on using eminent domain to advance private enterprise, job creation, tax
revenue generation, or economic development.” And whereas Democratic lawmakers
have dismissed claims that takings exceed legitimate definitions of “public
use” under current law, the Party’s resolution expresses concern on the grounds
that just such takings will be curtailed. Said Obenshain, “Democrats can’t have
it both ways.”
Obenshain
also challenged the DPVA’s stated opposition on the grounds that the Amendment
would “add to the complexity and expense of governmental entities seeking to
utilize eminent domain.”
“If
distinguishing between things that are clearly public uses, like roads and
schools, and things that are clearly not, like shopping plazas, is ‘complex,’
then so be it. But this isn’t rocket science,” he said.
On
the question of expense, he added, “The Amendment ensures that property owners
are justly compensated, which has always been the intent. Although I laud the
Democratic Party’s newfound commitment to thrift, it’s clearly inappropriate to
save money by shortchanging property owners.”
The
DPVA resolution further lists, as a rationale for their opposition, Attorney
General Ken Cuccinelli’s support of the Amendment’s ratification. “I get that
the Democratic establishment doesn't like our Attorney General, but it’s hard
to come up with a more petty reason than that to oppose a constitutional
amendment that protects the rights of all Virginians,” said Obenshain.
Noting
that 17 of 22 Senate Democrats supported the Amendment on first passage in 2011
(an election year for General Assembly members), Obenshain asked, “Why the change
of heart? If private property was worth protecting in 2011, it’s worth
protecting now.” Notably, Senator Mark Herring, who is pursuing the Democratic
nomination for Attorney General, voted against the Virginia Property Rights
Amendment in 2012 after supporting it in 2011.
“If
I have the privilege of serving as Virginia’s next Attorney General, Virginians
can count on me to stand up for private property rights—always,” said
Obenshain.
A
copy of an email Senator Obenshain shared with friends and supporters on this
issue is appended below.
Senator
Mark Obenshain is a candidate for Attorney General. He represents the
twenty-sixth district in the Virginia Senate. The district includes the city of
Harrisonburg and the counties of Warren, Shenandoah, Page, Rappahannock and
Rockingham (part).
ON
THE WEB:
---------------------------------------------------
Virginia
Democrats: "Who Needs Property Rights?"
Senator Obenshain's email to friends and supporters (9/28/12)
First
the national Democratic Party leadership abandoned any pretext of standing for
mainstream values when it dropped references to God from the party platform.
Now the Virginia Democratic establishment is doing the same by opposing the protection of our private property
rights. The Democratic Party walked back excluding God from the platform; don’t
be surprised if they try to back away from this crazy position, too.
Of
course, I don’t think the national Democrats experienced a true change of
heart—remember that embarrassing moment when the delegates clearly refused to
back down but party bosses ignored the vote because it looked bad? Similarly,
even if the Virginia Democrats do shelve their opposition to property rights,
it would probably be safe to chalk it up to pure damage control.
Still,
damage control is what they ought to be doing right now, because the position
the Democratic Party of Virginia has staked out is an astonishing one – a
position many of their own would find shocking. Here’s where things stand.
When
Virginians go to the polls this November, they will have the opportunity to
weigh in on a vitally important issue: whether or not the Constitution of
Virginia should protect the right of private property and stand as a bulwark
against eminent domain abuse.
Some—mostly
on the left—have opposed the Virginia Property Rights Amendment, calling it unnecessary.
They’ve said that eminent domain abuse doesn’t exist in Virginia, that an
Amendment is superfluous. As the Amendment’s Senate patron, I’ve always pointed
to cases of clear abuse, some ongoing, and to attempts by some Democrats to
chip away at the laws we have protecting the rights of private property owners.
But
now I can just point to a resolution adopted by the Democratic Party of
Virginia’s State Central Committee (their governing body). You want to know why
we need the Virginia Property Rights Amendment? Look no farther than the
astonishing reasons the state Democratic Party cites for opposing it:
They
oppose it because it “will lock into the Virginia Constitution a prohibition on
using eminent domain to advance private enterprise, job creation, tax revenue
generation, or economic development.”
In
other words, they oppose it because it actually defines public use – because it
makes clear what was once taken for granted, that condemning your property to
hand it over to a private developer is not a legitimate public
use. They actually want to preserve government’s ability to
continue to engage in abusive eminent domain practices.
In
recent years, “public use” has been turned into an ill-defined notion of
“public purpose,” where a “public purpose” is whatever a local government wants
it to be. And the Democratic Party of Virginia wants to keep it that way.
And
they go on. They also oppose the Amendment because they say it will “add to the
complexity and expense of governmental entities seeking to utilize eminent
domain for the benefit of taxpayers, even when property is taken for
unquestioned public purposes.”
Let’s
unpack that statement. Firstly, what do you think of that telling “even” – as
if takings for “unquestioned public purposes” (not even “public use”!)
are just one sort of legitimate taking? And what sort of complexity are we
talking about here, the “complexity” of distinguishing between true public uses
(roads, schools, utilities, etc.) and impermissible takings (e.g., handing over
the property to a private developer)? This isn’t rocket science.
And
“expense” – what expense, exactly? They’re referring to the
requirement that property owners must receive fair compensation. Does this come
with a price tag? Sure. But let’s call it what it is: just compensation.
We all want to save money, but presumably not by shortchanging property owners.
Our
friends in the Democratic Party aren’t quite done. Here’s the final reason
cited for their opposition: “Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli strongly supports
the amendment.” Listen, I get that the Democratic establishment doesn’t like
our Attorney General, but it’s hard to come up with a more petty reason than
that to oppose a constitutional amendment that protects the rights of all
Virginians.
They
will be happy to know, however, that one of their own candidates for Attorney
General, Senator Mark Herring, is opposed to enshrining property rights in the
Constitution of Virginia. Or at least, he is now, voting against the Amendment
on second passage earlier this year – after supporting it once its first year
passage became a fait accompli in 2011. He supported it before
he opposed it. Sound familiar?
Make
no mistake about it: Virginia Democrats are gearing up to oppose the Property
Rights Amendment. If we let this opportunity to restore property rights slip
through our fingers, we may not get a chance again for a very long time. We
have to win this one.
That’s
where you come in. Please forward this email to friends and family to make sure
they know how important it is to take a stand for property rights this
November. Ask your City Council or Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution
in support of the Virginia Property Rights Amendment. Get your local party
committee to indicate support for the Amendment on their sample ballots. And
most of all, remember to vote for property rights in November!
Posts
