At the 11th hour of the last legislative session, the New York State Senate and House passed legislation imposing certain limits on provisions in New York State law that allow transportation companies to take private property by right of eminent domain. This was good news for opponents of the New York Regional Interconnection (NYRI) power line, which, as a transporter of energy, is considered to be a transportation company under the law. It has also made no secret of its intention to seize property by right of eminent domain to achieve its ends.
Unfortunately, it is not clear the governor will sign the bill. New York City Mayor Bloomberg, representing all the powerful interests of downstate New York, has urged the governor not to do so, arguing that the matter requires further study. In addition, he and others have argued that the law is so narrowly focused that it is clearly targeting an individual company, making it unconstitutional.
In one respect, the point may be moot. Whether or not NYRI is granted power of eminent domain by New York State, it could still receive that power if the U.S.Department of Energy, enabled by the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy Act of 2005, were to designate a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor that includes NYRI’s proposed transmission pathways.
Even so, there is a very important principle at stake here that has enormous resonance in an election year—and that resonance does not favor politicians who want to make it easier for any of the big boys, whether government or corporate, to seize the homes of individuals on the basis of the “general good.”
In 2005, the Supreme Court decided, in Kelo vs. New London, that a municipality could seize people’s homes to be taken by commercial enterprises that could use their land more profitably. The public reaction was instantaneous, and negative. Since then, legislation has been proposed in state after state to prevent this kind of activity. And this is one of the very few issues on which voters are not divided on a party basis. Republicans may have more distrust of government’s definition of “general good,” and Democrats may have more distrust of business’s definition, but neither will vote for representatives who think that commercial interests override people’s rights to their own homes.
Our own representatives are already with us on this issue, so to that extent, our votes may not seem to have much influence in this case. Moreover, the issue of this particular legislation’s constitutionality will be handled in the courts, if anywhere, and not in the polling places. But what we can and ought to do—even beyond our opposition to NYRI—is continue to beat the drum against the expansion of eminent domain powers, whether mandated on a state or federal level.
Voters need to insist on more general legislation limiting big business’s right to take our homes and places of business. It could also be useful, in this regard, that Pataki may have presidential ambitions. Regardless of downstate pressure, he needs to know that the promotion of eminent domain rights is a big-time loser as a political issue with the American public at large, and the protection of private property a big-time winner.
We also need to make it clear that in America, whose forefathers structured a system of government that would protect itself against the tyranny of the majority as well as against the tyranny of kings, a policy that throws a minority (like upstate landowners) to the wolves for the sake of a larger population (like metropolitan inhabitants) will not be tolerated.
If there are energy shortages in the metropolitan area, of course, that needs to be addressed. The ways to do so range from routing additional power lines along pathways that are already heavily developed, to energy conservation alternatives, to point-of-use energy generation, as discussed in the editorial in our May 11 issue. But in America, our homes are indeed our castles, and in this election year we need to make it abundantly clear to those running for office that any trifling with that principle is the road to political death.
Dr. Punnybone
The Jig Is Up
Letters to the Editor
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters
on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include
the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and
town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles
and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing
on behalf of a group.
Letters are printed at the discretion of the editor.
It is requested they be limited to 300 words; correspondents may
be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.
A moral hazard is created when people are able to make decisions and take action, or fail to take action, for which they believe that they will not be punished if they are in error. Typically such hazard exists when their failure will not be recognized, will be compensated by insurance and/or corrected by external authorities, and the costs of failure will be borne by others.
The recent flood is an excellent example of just this problem. Everyone appears to know who created the flood conditions, particularly the surge in the river level and force that caused such damage to property and the local environment along the Delaware River.
PPL has a huge impoundment of Lake Wallenpaupack and no real responsibility beyond generating its own power and keeping the boaters happy. Many fingers are pointing in its direction as a major contributing factor to the recent flooding.
