A question of property rights.

ONE aspect that's been largely overlooked in the debate in California about eminent domain is this: Strong eminent domain laws give incredible power to politicians.

Here's why. A strong eminent domain law means that a developer who wants to build, say, an office complex probably needs to curry favor with local politicos--think donations, campaign help, various favors--to get the votes to seize the land needed. Likewise, a property owner who does not want his land seized also will have to trudge down to City Hall to curry favor in an effort to get votes. Of course, the ones in the middle--the politicians getting curried--stand to gain in that fight.

As a result, there's little enthusiasm by the political class to cut back on eminent domain laws.

In case you missed it, there's a small flurry of ballot initiatives as well as proposed legislation in Sacramento that would sharply curtail the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the fight of government to seize property, and the classic use of it was to force property owners to sell their land so the government could build roads, schools, parks and the like. The Fifth Amendment essentially says that private property can be seized by government for a public purpose, and just compensation must be paid for that land.

In recent decades, however, the definition of "public purpose" was stretched to include economic development. In other words, a city could seize land not only to build a taxpayer-owned water plant or library, but the city could turn over the seized land so a developer could build an arena, a hotel or even a big box store. The rationale was that the big box store would serve a public purpose by increasing tax revenue to the city and generally improving the area by creating jobs and business activity. In California, the government must first declare that a property is blighted before seizing the land.

This kind of eminent domain was used in Los Angeles to get land to build Bunker Hill high rises and Staples Center, among other developments.

The issue came to the fore last summer when the U.S. Supreme Court basically upheld the fight of governments to use eminent domain for economic development. But the Supremes said each state can limit its use of eminent domain, and that set off efforts to do just that. Of course, many of those efforts started with grassroots groups rather than governments, since politicians have a good deal to lose if eminent domain is curtailed.

In California, the main initiative is proposed by such a citizens' group, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. It would define "public purpose" seizures as those needed to build roads, government buildings and the like, not for hotels or shopping centers. It could seriously alter the way eminent domain has been used in this state.

For the most part, the eminent domain fight has been characterized as pitting the fight of landowners to keep their property against the fight of local governments to improve their communities through economic development. But if the use of eminent domain is seriously chopped back, politicians will see their power cut back, too.

If eminent domain were chopped back, it would force developers to negotiate directly with landowners, and politicians would be cut out of the bargaining.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at ccrumpley@labusiness journal.com