The proponents of eminent domain — a concept equally
abhorred by libertarians and victims of the practice — lost a recent round when
property owners who forfeited their lands to the Onslow Water and Sewer
Authority by condemnation won a hefty settlement.
Although the settlement fell short of the amount sought by property owners
involved in the dispute, they still walked away with $7.5 million, while doling
out an expensive lesson for government and quasi-governmental authorities.
The situation grew out of a condemnation of about 200 acres along Gum Branch Road
that belonged to the Hubert Rogers and Sue Boggs families. ONWASA originally
planned to use the condemned land to dispose of treated wastewater,
and it seized the land when the owners could not be persuaded to sell it.
Fast forward from the effective date of the condemnation process in 2008, when
landowners were given $1 million — what was considered the fair market value of
the land in question — to the present court settlement revolving around ONWASA’s attempt to subvert the process, in which it tried
to abandon the property and, at the same time, get its money back. ONWASA also
tried to dismiss its lawsuit at that time.
Meanwhile, the original property owners had filed an answer to the condemnation
with the courts showing that the $1 million they were paid did not in any way
cover the value of the mineral rights located on the property, which they said
could have been profitably mined.
ONWASA’s own geological experts valued the minerals
at $6 million — a far cry from the paltry $1 million in compensation split by
the two families. After ONWASA’s unsuccessful attempt
to back out of the deal, the water supplier finally agreed to settle the
lawsuit in the amount of $7.5 million — less than the original amount sought
(the plantiffs were hoping for $40 million) — but
much more than ONWASA originally wanted to pay.
While eminent domain has its champions (and not surprisingly most are employed
by the government), it is nonsensical to argue that the U.S. Constitution ever
meant that any government, or public concern, should have the right to not only
take property from its rightful holder, but also pay them well-below its value and,
when things don’t turn out as they planned, order those who’ve already been
damaged by the loss of their homes and land to fork the money back over and go
on with their lives.
This entire affair should not only leave a bad taste in the mouths of the county
and municipalities involved with ONWASA, but it should also force the public
sector to place this loathsome practice under the microscope and see it for
what it is: legalized theft.
While eminent domain may be constitutionally acceptable, it is morally
repugnant and should go the way of the Jim Crow laws. There is no place in a
civilized society for the forcible taking of someone’s home and property by
government.