While eminent domain reform is a priority for many legislators and interest groups, meaningful reform is not likely to occur in this session. The reason isn’t a lack of political support; the reason is a moral premise held by those legislators and interest groups.
As an example, Gordon Sauer, director, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, writes:
Even though eminent domain is a governmental power that is supposed to be used only for the public good, private entities who use eminent domain have very few obligations to operate in the kind of transparent manner that citizens have come to expect from public projects.
According to Sauer, eminent domain isn’t a problem because it allows entities to seize private property; eminent domain is a problem because the process isn’t “transparent” enough.
Sauer and his ilk don’t have an issue with forcing individuals to sacrifice for the “public interest.” So long as the alleged necessity of forcing individuals to sacrifice remains unchallenged, meaningful eminent domain reform will remain an illusion.
Property rights protect the freedom of individuals to create, acquire, use, and trade material values in the pursuit of their own well-being–their self-interest. Eminent domain (and all violations of property rights) are founded on the premise that the individual must sacrifice his interests for the alleged “public interest.”
Property rights and eminent domain are founded are two very different moral premises. To attempt to protect property rights while embracing the moral premise underlying eminent domain is worse than futile. It undermines property rights and will ultimately lead to greater violations.
The movement to reform eminent domain must recognize that the battle isn’t political. It is moral. And the advocates of reform will succeed only when they challenge the morality that gives rise to eminent domain.