One point in Hunter's letter (DP-Oct. 10) was correct, the quotation he ended his attack letter with, "Let the people know the truth and all will go well." There is one truth omitted in his letter that renders the rest moot.
He and the rest of our legislative delegation, with the exception of myself, voted to expand the government's power to take private property for private gain. This occurred during the January special session which the governor called following his inauguration.
I felt alone in my efforts opposing the expansion of eminent domain. It is a complex issue and the ability of government to seize private property for private gain exists in West Virginia state code. This power did not appear in code without legislators putting it there and this did not happen without the pressure from constituency groups that wanted to benefit from government taking someone else's land.
I had stirred up a hornet's nest by asking questions for a week and openly opposed the governor's bill in January. Instead of stirring up more opposition to protecting private property, I decided to wait for the Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London (Conn.). I thought the U.S. Supreme Court would have the sense to interpret the Fifth Amendment as only allowing the government to seize property for public use, not for private use or public purpose.
To my dismay, the court ruled to uphold Connecticut law, which allowed eminent domain for economic development. However, there was a silver lining. Almost everyone I knew and others were loudly and openly upset by this decision.
Things had changed. In January, it was impossible for me to stop the expansion of eminent domain because not many folks outside Charleston knew what was happening or even knew what powers exist in West Virginia law. I couldn't have made any headway during the regular session either. The Capitol is full of lobbyists representing groups that benefit from the government's power to take private property and transfer its ownership. But now, with this well-discussed Supreme Court case.the public was rightly up in arms and most certainly, public officials could feel the heat. Action could now be possible, or could it?
The governor could have dealt with the issue during the September special session, but chose not to. Face to face, I asked him to. I spoke at two press conferences during the summer, urging him to. Even a simple resolution stating that the Legislature intends to deal with the issue was too much to ask. Initially, the governor's call would have allowed my resolution on the agenda. But the governor changed his call so that the resolution could not be voted on and resolutions calling for action on the gas tax could not be under consideration.
However, resolutions to name bridges were voted on in both chambers. Hunter went to great length to undermine my credibility by writing that bridge resolutions were defeated in the Senate. The Senate passed resolutions naming bridges on Sept. 12.
Why I am still shocked by lies, is hard to tell, but I was shocked by the full-page color ad placed by the Monongalia County Democrat Executive Committee soon after we returned from the September special session. They claimed the governor and other legislators from my district supported protecting property owners' rights. This statement was lumped in with a true statement that they supported the 1 percent reduction in the tax on food.
I repeat, they did nothing during special session to protect property owners' rights. The governor prevented such action or even a statement of intent through resolution. The senators went so far as to uphold the governor's preference. And most importantly, in January, they all voted for the governor's bill which expanded the government's ability to take private property for private use. The claim in their ad that they had already protected private property could leave citizens believing the problem was solved.
But there's still a problem. The Supreme Court upheld Connecticut law. It is West Virginia law that needs to be changed in order to protect property owners. And, if a bill does make it through the political process, property owners must be alert to any exemption for "blight."
The recent TIF debate in Morgantown is an example of residents not being aware of how legislators have defined blight. A blighted area can be open space which lacks accessibility and therefore impairs sound growth of the community. Your property can be a blighted area if it has faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy or usefulness and therefore impairs sound growth of the community. In a nutshell, your property can be blight if it impedes a developers plans or the plans of city/county leaders.
An Urban Renewal Authority can deem your property a blighted area, and take it, if defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness impairs growth of the community or retards the provision of housing. Economic development authorities can take up to 25 percent of private property it needs for a development site, without defining your property as blighted.
If West Virginia passes legislation preventing the government from taking private property for development, an exception for blight could make that private property protection meaningless. If we pass legislation protecting property owners' rights, we need to avoid padding it with loopholes. Finally, the public must make their wishes known to legislators before they return to Charleston for the regular session where they are surrounded by the voices of the special interest groups.
DELEGATE CINDY FRICH represents the 44th District and lives in Morgantown. This commentary should be considered another point of view and not necessarily the opinion or editorial policy of The Dominion Post.