City government, like government at all levels, is supposed to serve and protect its residents. Cities were organized to provide some basic services like utilities, roads and streets, and police and fire protection. Unfortunately, as government always tends to do, city governments have expanded, and corrupted, to grab a multitude of other functions. In far too many case, city governments have come to treat their residents as inconvenient puppets to push around. The "city" has taken on a life of its own, and views residents as resources to be manipulated for the city's welfare, turning the natural order upside down.

There is no legitimate reason, or need, for a city to participate in a bidding war to attract a business at the expense of its current residents or businesses.

Take the case of a Wal-Mart or Costco, or a business such as the massive Best Buy corporate headquarters in Richfield. In facilitating such large developments, the city not only abandons protection of its own citizens, but also forcibly ejects them, in favor of a "foreign" entity. The claims of new jobs may be real, but jobs for whom? Jobs for the city residents, or jobs for residents of surrounding cities? By clearing a large land area, the city actually reduces the number of its own residents. In many cases, it also creates a larger industrial area around the new development, whether it intended to or not, further reducing the number of residents.

The city becomes an abstraction, unrelated to its individual residents. With decisions being made based on potential tax revenue for the city, rather than the benefit of current residents, industry will always trump residential property. Left unchecked, each city will eventually become all industrial, just as it has essentially become in larger cities. The residents left in primarily industrial areas are going to be the wealthy, who can afford to resist in protected pockets, and the poor, who will fill whatever open spaces can still be found. All those in between will move further out from industrialized areas. That IS what has been happening, but it hasn't happened naturally... it has been largely forced.

Is there a reason for Best Buy to be located in Richfield? Not one that I know of. Everyone connected with Best Buy drives to the huge corporate garage space, and then drives home to their residences, undoubtedly scattered all over the Twin Cities area. Is Richfield better for Best Buy than, say Lakeville? I doubt it very much. Best Buy provides nothing for Richfield except tax revenue.

Is there a reason for a Wal-Mart in Bloomington? Nobody walks to a Wal-Mart, or any other big-box. Even if they lived nearby, they would still drive to haul what they purchased. If one must drive to a store, is a difference of a few minutes more travel significant? Wal-Mart provides nothing for Bloomington except tax revenue.

Who is that tax revenue to benefit? Will it reduce taxes for those residents who remain in those cities? Of course not... the city will find new uses for any increase in revenue, and those new uses will probably cause the eviction of still more residents and small businesses, and increase the overlordly power of the local government in the process. We've had a dramatic increase in local government over the past few decades - more than either state or local government.

Unrestrained local governments have become increasingly intolerant "lords of the realm", declaring what residents may and may not do, and defining what is acceptable and unacceptable in the appearance of our properties. Elected city officials let their powers go to their heads and seek to build a pretty legacy they can lay claim to... a legacy that may lead to election to a higher office, or may just be something to impress their friends with. They find little resident opposition to their expanding development, only because each development injures only a small minority of the residents, while the rest are too busy to notice. Even if the citizens being thrown off their property seek to organize and dare to fight city hall, they're faced with an uphill battle against more money and power than they can muster. It's an ugly irony that such citizen groups are, in reality, forced to struggle against their own tax money being spent to crush them.

Those who suffer from the abuse of eminent domain are almost invariably the poorest members of the community... those who can least afford the time and money to fight city hall. They are often minorities and elderly people. Often, such people just quickly give up and sell, assuming that if they fight, they might well lose even more.

If the Supreme Court doesn't do something to reign in the use and threat of eminent domain, our cities will continue to give to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Poorer citizens, living in "substandard" or "blighted" housing that may offend the sensibilities of those who have more, are also citizens, and have the same rights as those with more money. There is NO justification for one group of citizens declaring another group's housing as unacceptable and then using force to evict them.  It is simply not a proper function of a government whose primary purpose is the protection and enhancement of ALL the residents.

Show me a city official who has voted to take their OWN home or business using eminent domain, and I might begin to believe that they're really doing "what's best for the city".

Related No Force articles from the archive: