Today, the Carolina Journal exclusive focused on proposals to build high-speech rail lines in various regions of the country, including North Carolina.

When I think about new rail, I think about eminent domain.

I just noticed something very interesting regarding the Triangle Transit Authority’s (TTA) potential use of eminent domain for economic development reasons (i.e. Kelo-type takings).

Any belief that economic development takings aren’t possible under existing statutes is incorrect and the following should make this point loud and clear. 

Background

The TTA had a potential arrangement with Cherokee Partners to develop areas around speculative local rail sites.  Would they seize private property and give it to Cherokee for development purposes?  In addition, would they seize property and give it to Cherokee even though it was highly unlikely a rail station ever would be built?

Timeline

May 27, 2006

I.  TTA Meeting: There is a TTA Board of Directors meeting.  A troublemaker from the John Locke Foundation provides comments regarding the proposed TTA and Cherokee Partner public-private partnership.

In another blog post, I’ll provide my entire comments (I’d link to it, but TTA didn’t include my comments as part of the minutes as they were supposed to do).

Regarding eminent domain, I stated:

We are told that economic development takings can?t occur in this state.  If the TTA seizes private property for high-density development, this authority will clearly show that economic development takings are alive and well in North Carolina. 

Taking or threatening to take property for high-density development because it might help a rail that someday could exist is not a proper public use and clearly is an economic development taking.

Here’s what General Counsel Wib Gulley said in response (as described in the minutes):

He added that TTA has not and will not engage in economic development takings and that it is stated clearly in the agreement that TTA’s eminent domain authority cannot be used to acquire peripheral properties.

Note: A few days before this meeting, JLF had just released my Spotlight on how TTA could seize private property for economic development.

II. Carolina Journal Exclusive 

The same day as the TTA meeting, Carolina Journal ran an exclusive written by Paul Chesser.

Here are some highlights:

Private-property advocates wonder whether TTA could seize land because North Carolina law allows eminent domain when ?it is useful for the purposes of public transportation.? But TTA?s interim director, Wib Gulley, ruled out the possibility that the agency would take any land for private development.

?That?s not something I think is lawful or appropriate,? Gulley said, ?so it?s not going to happen.?

Here’s another:

Now that the company [Cherokee Partners] is on the verge of an agreement with TTA, can it count on the agency?s power to condemn private property to help it seize the land it wants for development? Gulley said the issue was discussed with Cherokee.

?We told Cherokee that?s not something that?s even going to be considered,? Gulley said.

May 23, 2007

Only about eight months later, the TTA admitted the truth, not that many people would have seen the following (I just found it).  In the minutes for that day, here’s what Wib Gulley said:

Gulley then distributed copies of House Bill 878, a proposed constitutional amendment regarding eminent domain.  He said this bill threatens TTA’s partnership with Cherokee because it prohibits condemnation of private property to be conveyed to other private owners for economic development.  He said TTA was asked to comment and suggested language that it would not apply to the taking of properties for which the public use is preserved or utilized.

After this, why should anyone trust the TTA?  How do they explain away there adamant claims that eminent domain wouldn’t and couldn’t be used?

I wrote in 2006 that TTA was a major abuser of eminent domain–this could make them the symbol of eminent domain abuse (and dishonest government) in NC.