Murphy’s Law

by Jacob H. Huebert
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 18, 2002

Is it fair that one man should be forced to turn over his property to another man just because the other is his political superior? Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy and City Planner Susan Golomb seem to think so.

Mayor Murphy, as you may know, once again is entertaining the use of the government’s power of eminent domain to take longtime Downtown businesses and real estate from their rightful owners and give the land to private developers who want to build things like a luxury hotel and new retail complex. This means that if community members like the 101-year-old family-owned Harris Brothers Florists and others who have been established there for decades refuse to surrender their property voluntarily, the city will simply take it from them.

The resurfacing of this threat has attracted the attention of the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C., public-interest law firm that represents victims of eminent domain abuse in court for free. The institute played a pivotal part in defending these same Pittsburghers two years ago, when Murphy threatened to take their businesses and hand their land over to Chicago developers. The IFJ has vowed to stand up for them again.

Golomb, whose Plan C Task Force recommended the use of eminent domain to the mayor, argues that the institute doesn’t have any business telling her and the mayor how to run their city. “I think the issue you should understand is that the Plan C Task Force is made up of Pittsburghers,” she says. “The Institute for Justice is not a group of Pittsburghers.”

Golomb seeks to smear the Institute for Justice as “out-of-towners,” as if they’re a band of tomahawk-wielding savages attacking the Block House at Point State Park. But this outrageous public relations stunt is nothing more than an execrable attempt to draw attention away from the real issue at hand.

Power Play

At the heart of the matter is the fact that Golomb and her task force want to snatch what lifelong Pittsburghers have worked all their lives to achieve so that she can have her way. The real issue, for the people who actually live and work Downtown, is that she wants to destroy the businesses that lower-income Pittsburgh residents depend on. In reality, Murphy and Golomb, through a political power play, want to use brute force to take from Pittsburgh’s poor and politically powerless, and give to the rich and politically powerful.

The mayor and Golomb try to sound nice about it by assuring us that eminent domain is only in their plans as a “last resort,” if the business and property owners don’t cooperate. This promise is meaningless. If eminent domain is on the table at all, then the city is, in fact, using the threat of eminent domain as a weapon against those local Pittsburghers. Their “last resort” promise is like a thug pointing a gun at you and telling you that he sure hopes you voluntarily cooperate with him so he doesn’t have to shoot you as a “last resort.” His enthusiasm for your voluntarily cooperation and “last resort” assurances probably wouldn’t make you feel any less like the victim of an armed robbery.

It is true that the city is permitted by the Fifth Amendment to use eminent domain to take private property for public purposes. And even though the Founding Fathers only intended that land may be taken for truly public projects, such as roads, courthouses and city halls — and not for private commercial developments – the present day activist courts have generally let city governments slide with anything they can remotely justify as a “public purpose.” So Mayor Murphy might just be able to condemn the property with impunity.

But will that make it right? Not unless you think that there is one standard of morality for private citizens and another standard of morality for mayors and city planners. That is, does stealing somehow become morally acceptable because a government official does it and a court approves it? Who could say that Murphy and Golomb will be doing anything other than stealing if they take the land and businesses Downtown by eminent domain or threats thereof?

Hardly Mutual

But, someone might argue, the Fifth Amendment requires that the people whose land is taken through eminent domain be compensated, so it’s not really theft. It’s true that the owners would be compensated, but whatever the city pays them will necessarily be less than the property is worth. Why? Because the market value of anything, including businesses and real estate, is only actually determined when a willing buyer and willing seller mutually agree to a price and execute a voluntary transaction. A private party couldn’t force you to sell your house just because they’re willing to pay what an appraiser says that it’s worth. If someone would take your property by force and pay you anything less than you would voluntarily accept without any threat, that’s stealing.

Even if it looks like Murphy and the city planners are going to close in and use eminent domain tactics, the business owners should stand their ground to the last. A thug who steals what he wants when the owner won’t give it to him doesn’t deserve the sanction of the victim.

That way, if the Downtown business owner/victims of Murphy’s Law won’t give their sanction to the mayor, and he has to go to court to take their property through legalized theft, then everyone will at least see Murphy’s actions for what they really are, and see Murphy for what he really is.

© 2002 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review