Letter to editor in The Times

The following letter to the editor was published in The Times, Thursday February 7, 2008:

Appropriate exercise of eminent domain? The Sherwood City Council voted unanimously to condemn the former NorthHills Country Club property and claim eminent domain. Really, eminent domain? Eminent domain is the act of a government exercising its power to transfer title to private property from the rightful owner to itself. This is the council’s latest plan, a force-feeding of a multimillion-dollar purchase to the residents of our community in the form of initiating a public seizure? Temporarily disregarding the fact that many, likely a majority, of Sherwood citizens are opposed to the idea of an expensive acquisition of the property and will not be asked to vote on the city’s decision, how can this situation possibly be considered an appropriate use of eminent domain?
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes the statement, “Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken, for public use, without just compensation.”There are prudent and genuine reasons that all levels of government sometimes need to take private property: highways, railroads, utility needs, war demands, public safety concerns, etc. But a golf course/citypark? How is the city planning to pitch that “due process of law” argument? Is public safety threatened by losing a golf course in place of a neighborhood?
The right to private property should not be taken lightly. Citizens need to be reasonably assured that they are free to invest in property for the purpose of investment or personal use. It’s one of the backbones of capitalism.The economist Adam Smith stated it this way: “The expectation of profit from improving one’s stock of capital rests on private property rights, and the belief that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market.”
The owner of this private property had a firm offer of $5.3 million, and now the city of Sherwood, in domineering, bully-like style, wants to purchase it for $2.2 million. This is not an issue of public need outweighing the constitutional right to private property (eminent domain). This can be better defined as a quasi-legal effort to defraud a local property owner out of the market value of private property. I actually hope the owner, Club Properties, is awarded far more than the original $5.3 million when a jury determines a value that is “fair and full compensation.”The use of eminent domain in this situation is a complete sham, and even though most Sherwood residents don’t want to purchase the golf course, we will all, unfortunately, be asked to pay the bill. - Bryant Rushing, Sherwood