In 2015, the city of Rowlett condemned a private driveway to improve traffic flow between two shopping centers. The owner of the driveway–KMS Retail Rowlett–filed suit. The trial court ruled in favor of the city, and that verdict was upheld on appeal. The case has reached the Texas Supreme Court, which heard arguments in early November.
KMS argued that eminent domain was used to promote economic development, which Texas law prohibits. The city’s attorney argued that the state law contains an exception for transportation projects, adding, “In all condemnations there will be some benefit to private persons.”
According to the city’s attorney, eminent domain inevitably means picking winners and losers. He is correct, but government should not be picking winners and losers. Government is supposed to be an impartial arbiter and protector of individual rights, including property rights. This means that a proper government refrains from promoting the interests of one individual over another.
Consider what would happen if a football referee was partial to the home team. There would be an uproar over the injustice. The visiting team would be demoralized because its actual performance would be rendered irrelevant. Fans would lose interest in the game. And the home team couldn’t really celebrate because its success was attained dishonestly.
This is precisely what eminent domain (as well as all violations of property rights) does, no matter the purpose for which it is used. Someone will benefit, not because of his virtues but because the referee is partial to his cause. And some will be harmed, not because of their vices but because the referee has chosen them to sacrifice for the “public interest.”
When a football referee is partial to one team, it can be disheartening. But when government is partial to the interests of some at the expense of others, real people are impacted. Dreams are destroyed. Lives are damaged. Futures are thrown into chaos.
Government–like football referees–should not be picking winners and losers.