Washington's chapter of the Institute for Justice (IFJ) is located on the sixth floor of a beautifully renovated building in Pioneer Square. Its walls are tastefully decorated with modern art, its conference tables piled high with legal papers and books as the IFJ prepares for court litigation on behalf of a small, waste hauling company trying to compete with the city's contracted firms. In addition to providing free litigation services to protect small entrepreneurs from unconstitutional infringement by government upon free speech and property rights, the IFJ has been active recently in the Rainier Valley trying to educate the public and raise awareness about eminent domain abuse, defined as the forced purchase by government of private property for transfer to other private entities.
However, organizations such as Media Transparency have a different view of the Institute for Justice. Some see the IFJ's campaign against eminent domain abuse as part of a thrust to give corporate interests free range to make money at the expense of the urban environment. To them, following the IFJ's advice would be tantamount to throwing out the Rainier Valley's neighborhood planning dreams of pedestrian-friendly town centers with safe and attractive affordable-housing. If housing for low-income residents continued to exist, Media Transparency associates say, it would be an over-priced, shoddy breeding ground for crime and parking lots in front of big box stores would increasingly line our major thoroughfares.
According to IFJ local director, Bill Maurer, eminent domain is legal and in some cases may be justified in taking private property for public use, as for example, to build a light rail line. But he maintains that when government takes private property and sells it to private, non-profit developers, as allowed under Washington's Community Renewal Area law for the purpose of building affordable housing, for example, or to develop neighborhoods in accordance with neighborhood plans, government clearly oversteps its bounds.
That's why IFJ representatives in sharp suits and ties began showing up in the Rainier Valley during the Southeast District Council's public outreach sessions on the local Community Renewal Area (CRA) effort this fall. They attended the CRA forum at the Rainier Valley Cultural Center on October 19 when an angry crowd heckled city officials, who were therefore unable to complete their presentations for the evening. Subsequently, the IFJ helped organize a groundswell of opposition to CRA as crowds took over additional outreach sessions and usurped agendas at neighborhood association and Southeast District Council meetings. On Dec. 2 the IFJ conducted an all-day training at the Mount Baker Community Club to raise public awareness about eminent domain abuse and teach activist skills to fight for property rights and free speech.
Citizens sceptical about the IFJ
During a recent interview in his office, Maurer said he has no quarrel with the CRA initiative other than with the element of eminent domain. He is not opposed to the intent of the Southeast Action Agenda to create a CRA effort that would give neighborhood groups greater control over how the future light rail town centers will be planned and constructed. However, he insisted eminent domain is not an essential tool for such community renewal. If any Rainier Valley group wants to use the Washington state community renewal law, it simply needs to make sure the city ordinance clearly states that private property will not be purchased for transfer to another private entity, asserted Maurer.
In the process of their education efforts, Maurer and his colleagues have not communicated this finer nuance to the crowds showing up at meetings in the Rainier Valley. Vocal opponents of community renewal have consistently reiterated the notion that, because eminent domain is allowed in the Washington State Community Renewal law, it would therefore be an integral part of any city ordinance on community renewal, rejecting the CRA concept all together. In fact, advocates of neighborhood planning believe realtors and private, for-profit developers have nurtured this misunderstanding by painting community renewal with one wide brush stroke of eminent domain.
"The folks who are organizing with the IFJ against community renewal seem to want one thing: to shut the conversation down before all the options are known and weighed carefully," said Southeast District Council member, Andrea John-Smith. "The favorite tactic seems to be to use email and flyers to make extreme claims, incite people's basest fears, and spawn conspiracy theories.
"I hope calm, careful deliberation carries the day. I also hope folks pay attention because a lot is at stake. Without CRA or a similar policy framework, we could see a big hole in our community; we're already seeing it! Where are the Valley's families who earn $25-50k - the teachers, the office workers, and trades people - going to live? Renton? Puyallup? Could CRA make a difference? Some folks seem to not want us to find out."
Sage Wilson is one neighborhood activist who feels dismayed and believes a "mob psychology" has taken over.
"Look at the changes in the Central District over the last 10 years for an eye opening example of how the unchecked real estate market can cleanse a neighborhood of poor people while enriching a few lucky developers and speculators," Wilson said. "If we want a better future for Southeast Seattle and the city, we need an accountable public agency with the power to intervene in the real estate market in order to promote affordable, safe, and healthy housing.
"Without a government role, the people of the city don't have a voice in the future of our neighborhoods. It's a one-acre, one-vote system. Eminent domain can be part of an effort to correct that inequity. No doubt eminent domain has been abused by government in the past, and in the most racist, classist and otherwise nefarious ways. But with community members involved, and proper checks and balances, we can all benefit."
IFJ's roots
A look at the history of the IFJ lends credence to assertions about its ulterior motives. The IFJ was founded by Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick, two notoriously right wing opponents of affirmative action. Mellor served as deputy general counsel for Legislation and Regulation in the Reagan administration, a period that saw steady decline of government restrictions on big energy corporations. In the late 1980s and early 1990s Mellor headed an ultra-conservative think tank that challenged environmental regulation and favored privatization and water rights.
Clint Bolick worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was its chairman, leading the charge for Wisconsin's school voucher program.
Funded by the reactionary Bradley Foundation, Bolick defended the program in court along with such attorneys as independent counsel, Kenneth Starr. Bolick is author of "Affirmative Action Fraud," published by the Cato Institute.
The IFJ's funding has historically come from such sources as the Wal-Mart endowed Walton Family Foundation and from the Koch Family foundation, which funds other ultra-conservative causes like the Cato Institute.
Koch funds are based on the family fortunes of David and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries, a huge oil, natural gas, and land management firm.
Maurer flatly denied accusations that the IFJ's ultimate goal is to free big business from government regulation. He insisted that the institute's sole intent is to protect small businesses and homeowners.
In the Rainier Valley, he said, the institute is simply trying to keep government from taking property away from the little guy and giving it to big business.
"If we are tools for big business, we are doing a horrible job of it," Maurer said.
Othello resident Mona Lee may be reached via editor@sdistrictjournal.com.
[[In-content Ad]]
