Rep. Harold Ford Jr. has launched his campaign for Bill Frist's Senate seat in earnest, yet people seem to be overlooking a major error in his judgment.
Not long after the widely discredited Kelo vs. the City of New London decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allowed communities to take property via eminent domain for private development, Ford came out in support of this boneheaded decision.
If you're a property owner, consider the other types of legislation which Ford might back before voting him into a Senate seat.
Ken Dryden
ken-dryden@utc.edu
* * *
When people mischaracterize Harold Ford’s record, I urge you to dig deeper, and don’t believe the rhetoric. Again we have people wrongly accusing Harold Ford of being supportive of eminent domain, which is an issue I’ve spent a great deal of time researching.
Here is what I’ve found: Harold Ford fully supports the rights of property owners and has the record to prove it. Congressman Ford voted in favor of a resolution showing Congress’ displeasure of a court decision eroding the rights of property owners. These are the facts.
Harold Ford has fought and will continue to fight for us because he knows that government cannot and should never be allowed to take away our fundamental right to own property. He clearly understands that none of us want our property to be confiscated by the government in favor of corporate interests.
Adam Green
adam-green@utc.edu
* * *
Mr. Dryden's short and to the point opinion appearing in the Chattanoogan on March 8, was inaccurate. I will not speculate as to whether the inaccuracy was due to ignorance or deceit, but it seems fair that the record should be set straight.
Congressman Ford actually opposed the Supreme Court decision referred to by Mr. Dryden. This opposition was demonstrated in a vote for a congressional resolution expressing disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kelo v. New London case.
He did later vote against the Garrett Amendment, which was proposed to counteract the above Supreme Court decision. Congressman Ford determined this piece of legislation went too far in imposing the federal government's presence in any initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development involving private development or investment.
To take these circumstances and "summarize" them in the fashion that Mr. Dryden did is irresponsible. I would hope that was an honest mistake.
Andy Fitzsimmons
finneg1@yahoo.com
* * *
The author of the letter that makes the claim that Congressman Harold Ford Jr. is a threat to property owners is just dead wrong.
In fact, in a July 2005 op-ed that ran in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Congressman Ford said the following about the Kelo decision, "The court's decision opens the door to the erosion of the sanctity of private property in our nation."
Congressman Ford has and always will be a strong supporter and defender of property owners' rights. In fact, his voting record while in the Congress reflects that notion.
In 1997, Congressman Ford voted yes on Private Property Rights Implementation Act. This act made it easier for property owners whose property was seized illegally by state or local governments to get their review heard before a federal court. (10/22/1997 HR 1534)
In 1998, Congressman Ford voted yes on passage of the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act of 1997. This act gave property owners more leeway in their suits against the federal government for disagreements regarding the government takeover of their private property. The suits would be heard in a U.S. Court of Federal Claims or in the U.S. District Court. (03/12/1998 HR 992, 03/12/1998)
In 2000, Congressman Ford was a supporter of the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000. This act proposed a speed up of the routine property owners use to take local land use cases that deal with the "takings" clause," which is found in the Fifth Amendment, to a federal court. It also gave property owners the power to take their claim to a federal court if their local government had rejected their first application to develop a piece of property, a request for a waiver and an appeal. Further, the bill would require federal entities to alert property owners who are affected, of their rights and the steps they must take to retain compensation, which is required to be turned into them within 30 days of an agency's decision. (03/16/2000 HR 2372)
Currently, Congressman Ford is a co-sponsor of the Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property Act of 2005. This is a bill that would "prohibit the provision of Federal economic development assistance for any State or locality that uses the power of eminent domain power to obtain property for private commercial development or that fails to pay relocation costs to persons displaced by use of the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes." (HR 3405 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03405)
As you can see, Harold Ford Jr. has always supported the rights of property owners.
Congressman Ford believes no one's home, farm, or business should be taken by our government so the corporate world can simply make a profit.
It is evident that the Republicans are going to try and say anything about Harold Ford Jr. in this Senate race.
However, they must all remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
Chris D. Jackson
chrisdjackson@gmail.com