Property Rights
From Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki
Eminent domain by the government over citizen property rights should very rarely be used. Against the Supreme Court decision, economic development is not reason enough for condemnation of residential properties. Land banking by powerful interests rank much lower on the scale in regards to public interest. For example, the incredible cost sanctioned by the U.S. Senate of the Utah Federal Courthouse expansion includes destruction of a popular club, moving an historic building across the street, and condemnation of the destination, all while an empty lot owned by a powerful concern continues to be unused to the south. The question of need consistently arises in this case, but it is overridden by government rather than public interest.
I am against these large entity protections and believe the local public should be more in control of these cases.
I also suggest expanding the debate on protection of property rights to a broader scope. More specifically use it in reference to debate self-ownership, whether this be a persons right to consume drugs in the privacy of their homes or to reasonable expectations about the use of their property.
