Ellington

Limiting eminent domain to public projects only is a "job killer," Bishop Ronnie Crudup, senior pastor of New Horizon Church International, said yesterday.

Crudup spoke at a press conference with businessmen and state legislators to encourage Mississippians to vote no on Initiative 31. The initiative would prevent governments that acquire property through eminent domain from selling it to any non-governmental entity for 10 years.

"Do not be fooled. This initiative will not stop the use of eminent domain, but will only hinder job creation in the state of Mississippi," Crudup said. "Mississippians cannot afford to lose out to surrounding states that are not crippling themselves with such bad legislation. If you want to see good-paying jobs continue to come to Mississippi--such as Nissan, Toyota and others--then vote no on Initiative 31."

Crudup is also the chairman of the Jackson Redevelopment Authority Board of Commissioners. Jason Brookins, executive director of JRA, was at the press conference, but said JRA does not have an official position on the initiative. He attended as a concerned citizen.

Sen. John Horhn, D-Jackson, said he can think of only one situation where one could argue that the state tried to use eminent domain for private development--to build the Nissan plant in Canton in 2001.

"By imposing this kind of legislation, you're not eliminating eminent domain, especially for the public use and necessity," Horhn said. "But in the situation where there are people who are disadvantaged and have their property taken and given to another private concern--that's not an issue in Mississippi."

Socrates Garrett, publisher of the Mississippi Link and founder of the contracting company Garrett Enterprises, said Mississippi needs the option of using eminent domain to attract new industries.

"Mississippi has been on the bottom in per-capita income forever," he said. "... We need this tool in the toolbox, whether it's used or not."

But supporters of the initiative--including the Mississippi Farm Bureau and the National Federation of Independent Businesses--argue that everyone's property rights are threatened. Farmers and small business owners also add to a community's economic development and shouldn't be forced off their property so the government can sell it to a large corporation, the groups say.

Previous Comments

ID

165280

Comment

I'm not following the logic: If they're saying eminent domain is never used by the government to take private property and hand it a private company cheap (other than the Nissan mess), why not have the law in place guaranteeing that it doesn't happen again? Why does it need to be a "tool"? And I don't buy the "job creation" excuse on this one; didn't when they were trying to screw those Canton landowners on behalf of Nissan, and don't now. I'm for job creation, but not at any cost. Corporations such as Nissan can get other incentives, but they should negotiate in good faith and at market rates to take private land for commercial use. Clearly, you can see where I stand on this initiative. Unlike voter ID, supporters show a compelling need for this legislation to keep the government from overstepping its bounds on behalf of big business. Just watching the state of Mississippi and Nissan try to screw those black long-time landowners out of market rate for their land (and homes) was all it took for me to support this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-10-27T13:12:44-06:00

ID

165282

Comment

What do the landowners in Canton being black have to do with anything? The japanese and Ronnie Musgrove don't like black people?

Author

RobbieR

Date

2011-10-27T14:15:36-06:00

ID

165283

Comment

The japanese and Ronnie Musgrove don't like black people? Robbie: Your question suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1028&Itemid=165 The State's use of eminent domain is part of an unfortunate trend where land is taken not for a public use—such as a bridge, post office, or public school--but at the behest of a private company for its private use. The Institute for Justice, along with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, helped Madison County property owners buck this trend. A state official overseeing the project admitted in The New York Times that the Archies' land was not necessary for the Nissan project, but that his office pursued the taking to save face for the State. On September 10, 2001, the Times quoted James C. Burns, Jr., the executive director of the Mississippi Development Authority, "It's not that Nissan is going to leave if we don't get that land. What's important is the message it would send to other companies if we are unable to do what we said we would do. If you make a promise to a company like Nissan, you have to be able to follow through." Why is it important that they're black? Because Mississippi is a state that, institutionally, has taken very seriously the idea of limiting the rights and economic opportunities for black folks, in code at least through the 1970s, in practice much later. For bureaucrats to step in and take land from black families in the 21st century in order to turn it over to a Japanese corporation -- and that land wasn't even required for a project -- is egregious, PARTICULARLY given this state's history of screwing over black folks. (I am no doubt cross-posting with Donna, but Robbie's wide-eyed thought grenades may be getting the best of me.)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-10-27T16:46:27-06:00

ID

165284

Comment

I am very much in favor of this initiative and am in agreement with RobbieR that the color of the landowner's skin is moot in this issue. This initiative represents yet another encroachment of our personal liberties by the government in the guise of jobs and the economy, etc. Please tell me, Mr. Stauffer, that you would as much up in arms if the Archies were not black. Please tell me that you defend, equally, all people regardless of their ethnicity.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-10-28T04:42:37-06:00

ID

165285

Comment

First, Robbie, I assure you that "Mr. Stauffer" and I are against the government taking anyone's land and handing it to a corporation for less than market value. There is no "free" in that enterprise, and it strikes both of us as a tad un-American with due respect to the opponents of this initiative (many of whom talk a whole lot on other issues about the government keeping its hands off ... business, anyway). Race was very relevant in the Nissan case because it was long-time black landowners getting screwed by the state on behalf of Nissan. I rather doubt that, say, Leland Speed's land would have been snatched up by the government for less-than-market-rate and then handed to Nissan. Maybe he would have donated it on behalf of job creation, but that would be a personal choice -- which the people in that case weren't being given. Under this story, race is an especially relevant point precisely because the story is about a group of prominent African Americans calling for people to oppose the eminent domain initiative. I'm quite positive that they are especially trying to appeal to African Americans. It is very sad to me that it has come to needing an initiative to stop the state from taking land from landowners at bargain-basement rates and then giving it to corporations, but this has become a prime example of when government (or the people) need to step in to stop government overreach. That makes this initiative very different from the other two on the ballot, which are all about extreme government overreach. In the case of personhood, in exactly the kind of vague way that leaves everything up to crazy judges that we should all fear. And in the case of voter ID, its fool backers want voters to pass a crazy, expensive law that wouldn't actually address the voter fraud that exists. Classic backward government over-reach. Beyond that, Todd is right on. It is disheartening to see a group of black leaders speak out against an initiative that would, in part, protect black landowners from getting taken (pardon the expression) by the government on behalf of big industry. Of course this group of leaders includes several developers, so it's no surprise. Still sad, though.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-10-28T09:09:25-06:00

ID

165286

Comment

Please tell me, Mr. Stauffer, that you would as much up in arms if the Archies were not black. Please tell me that you defend, equally, all people regardless of their ethnicity. Indeed I do. It's a stupid and offensive question. I fully support the idea that people's property should not be taken for the purpose of turning it over to private developers, and will likely vote for the initiative. (My one concern is that there are certain areas where property should be condemnable because it is in complete disrepair or disregard by the owners, and I'll evaluate the current initiative in that light... unfortunately, many of these initiatives are poorly conceived and worded.) But... Darryl... RobbieR... PLEASE tell me that you understand that blacks have been *systematically* denied the *right* in this state to BUILD WEALTH within their families and communities and that ANY continued interference from the state in the modern age with the ability of blacks to build wealth, particularly through land-ownership and other law-abiding citizen action -- is utterly unacceptable and egregious given the historical context. That's my point and I’m stickin' to it. All y'all who want to *hand-wave* and say "WAIT DON'T MENTION RACE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT'S ALL TOTALLY COOL NOW" will find it hard for me to agree. We've got to keep talking about how and why institutional racism got us to where we are in Mississippi -- in our communities, schools, job opportunities, laws, legal system, eminent domain practices, and more -- and we've got to keep working to do something about it.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-10-28T09:18:01-06:00

ID

165294

Comment

WOWWWW. Absolutely disgraceful. From prior readings, I could have sworn these courageous leaders were the beacons of light in an otherwise dark and shady city controlled by the underbelly of Northeast Jackson. I'm quite positive that they are especially trying to appeal to African Americans. With an influential black evangelical preaching from the podium? I fail to follow this logic. Next you'll try to tell me Socrates Garrett would ignore the hurtful and misleading comments Haley Barbour has made in the past concerning the *NEVER 4GET* history of our state and, gasp, vote for him in a presidential election (if Barry wanted to moonwalk to a second term) Add Crudup to the mix of Sharpton, Falwell, P. Robertson, Rainbow Jackson, Oral Roberts, etc. Church and state should remain separate. No excuses. If my preacher tried to influence my vote, I'd send him/her a loud and clear message. If we could only separate ourselves from "the state" permanently. Instead we set precedents by electing presidents who only want to feed this monster. The government would love to take your land, your body, your mind, your soul. And dessert. By the way, Obamaniacs who follow journalism: Check out the Obama administration's newest FOIA request. Transparency, yes we can.

Author

jbreland

Date

2011-10-31T23:11:36-06:00