private property

In South Carolina, the fate of five men has hung in the balance for the last four years. They crime they have been accused of is running an illegal house of gambling from the home of one of the defendants. In actuality, the five men were playing a twice weekly, kitchen table game of poker, in which they paid an agreed upon fee (a “rake) in order to pay for drinks and snacks.

At first blush, the case seems like an inconsequential example of a backward law in a conservative state, but as it has wound through the judicial system in South Carolina it has sparked debate about landmark issues and the decisions could have reverberating implications for the rest of the country.

In 2006, the five men were arrested and convicted for illegal gambling. In 2009, however, Judge R. Markley Dennis reversed the gambling convictions and declared that the particular game the men were playing, Texas Hold ‘Em, is a game of skill and not one of chance. The men were still convicted of operating a gambling house, but the ruling was seen as a victory by poker players. In particular, online gamblers saw it as a step towards defending their favored game on the Internet (as case could be cited as precedent in future hearings on the legality of online gambling).

In South Carolina it is illegal to play a game of chance. Games of skill, however, are legal.

The state’s laws regarding gambling are out of date and incredibly vague.

The 1802 law in South Carolina regarding gambling states that any game with cards and dice is illegal. That does not just mean poker, it involves games such as Chutes and Ladders, Yahtzee, and even Go Fish.

But interpretation of the the law has been left largely in the hands of law enforcement. This most recent case has lawmakers and legal scholars to question the wisdom of leaving the topic so ill defined. Earlier this week Senior Assistant Attorney General Sonny Jones said that low-stakes, friendly games of cards are not illegal under South Carolina law:

“It is our position that this statute does not encompass the Friday night poker game or the penny ante” get-together…Occasional games of bridge are also safe.”

Assistant Attorney General Havird Jones said it is up to law enforcement to decide if a poker game has drifted into an illegal house of gaming.

He said common sense, purpose and legal language should help police determine what is at hand.

While the statement seems promising for the right to play poker, leaving the definition vague and for cops to determine on the seem leaves the legality of individual behavior within his or her own home that much more opaque. It does, however, get to the heart of the issue under debate with this case. When does one’s private residence become “public” because of the activities they choose to engage in within the privacy of their own home?

Henry McMaster, an attorney general in the state, is challenging the Charleston judge’s ruling that Texas Hold ‘Em is a game skill. If he is successful, they may not need to address the limitation of private property rights in the state of South Carolina. While a decision is not likely to be issued for several months, South Carolinians — as well as poker players — ought to watch the proceedings carefully, as they will have broad implications for both gaming and property rights on residents in the state and the rest of the country.

The economic track record of the current administration and Congress is not a good one. Unemployment remains stubbornly high at nearly 10 percent, and many believe federal missteps prolonged the recession and are weakening the recovery. While things like ill-advised spending, Obamacare, and looming tax hikes are doing damage nationwide, a number of other federal measures have particularly burdened the American West, the region suffering with the highest unemployment rate in the country. The Senate and House Western Caucuses’ recent study, “The War on Western Jobs,” documents the host of environmental policies that have targeted the sectors crucial to the economies of Western states — especially energy production but also mining, logging, farming, and ranching.

It is important to note that the federal government controls the economic fate of western states to a greater extent than any other part of the country. The lands comprising 12 western states (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska) are nearly half owned by the federal government. More so than other regions, job losses in the West can be traced to federal policies.

The Obama administration’s attack on Western energy jobs began within weeks of taking power when the Department of the Interior revoked 77 oil and gas leases in Utah and halted new oil shale projects in Colorado. By the end of 2009, the administration had issued fewer onshore energy leases than in any year under Bush or Clinton, and the pace thus far in 2010 is no better. Throughout the West, vast energy-containing federal lands are currently off-limits, and the administration and Congress have sought to restrict access to millions of additional acres. Even where energy leasing is not explicitly prohibited, Obama’s regulators have imposed red tape and bureaucratic delays that have substantially limited it.

Beyond oil and gas, the administration has all but declared war on coal mining, which is particularly vital to Wyoming and Montana. The Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming regulations as well as many other anti-coal measures (including Boiler MACT, combustion byproducts, new National Ambient Air Quality Standards, others) bode ill for the future of western coal.

The threat of new energy taxes has only added to the chilling effect on Western investment in energy projects.

In addition to the impact on energy production, the federal government’s excessive ownership of land — as well as intrusive measures like the Endangered Species Act that target private property — is posing growing problems for other industries. Despite the West’s mineral wealth, mining jobs continue to decline. The same is true of logging. Farmers and ranchers also face a host of costly hurdles.

Instead of providing regulatory relief that could turn the region’s economy around, Congress has proposed new constraints like the sweeping Clean Water Restoration Act. This bill would essentially federalize land-use decisions on any property containing wetlands, and compounds the threat by defining wetlands so expansively so as to include almost everywhere. And the Obama Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service have issued new agency guidance for federal lands, which under the name of addressing global warming would further restrict access.

Granted, Washington’s control over western lands and the misuse of that control to curtail economic activity is not a new phenomenon, but the current administration and Congress have taken it to a new level.

The West’s economic pain has not been justified by environmental gain. Quite the contrary, Uncle Sam turns out to be a lousy landlord. For example, the forest fires that have become common in Western lands in recent years have mostly originated on federal lands, and not on privately-held forests which tend to be better managed against such risks. A less-intrusive federal approach could deliver both economic and environmental benefits.

The next Congress should have a long list of reforms on its agenda. The Western Caucuses’ report spells out what needs to be addressed to get the American West back on the path to prosperity.

Popular outrage over eminent domain abuse may have waned a bit since the Supreme Court’s poorly-reasoned Kelo ruling in 2005, but economic development takings remain incredibly unpopular throughout the country. Public opinion polls indicate that more than 80 percent of Americans oppose eminent domain for economic development, which is surprising when one considers the relative inaction on the part of state legislatures to meaningfully protect their citizens’ property rights.

However, there are reasons to be optimistic. Brooklynites fighting the proposed Atlantic Yards development filed a lawsuit today challenging the legality of the Metro Transit Authority’s land handout to the private developer. In Texas, citizens will soon vote on widely-supported Proposition 11, which would amend the Texas Constitution to prevent area blight designations and condemnations, and prohibit takings for purposes of economic development. If it passes, which seems likely, Texas property owners will have some of the strongest protections against eminent domain abuse in the nation.

But there is a lot of work to do. Many in this country are still largely defenseless against development takings, so the question arises: What can property owners do to take back their rights from revenue-hungry municipalities and rent-seeking developers? The law, as it stands, is against them in most respects, but there are legislative avenues worth pursuing.

A few of the most politically-feasible are:

  1. Enacting state legislation mandating the creation and maintenance of a public eminent domain database accessible via the Internet. Currently, data on development takings are difficult to obtain due to the fact that eminent domain condemnations are ordered at the local level. Right now, an empirical analysis of takings within a state would require contacting every county clerk and requesting specific filings. A central state database would allow social scientists, journalists, and the public to examine the economic effects of eminent domain use and abuse.
  2. Enacting state legislation defining “public use” as “use by a government body,” which would deny municipalities the opportunity to claim that their takings deals with private developers serve the “public purpose” because they will ostensibly increase tax revenue at some future date.
  3. Enacting state legislation mandating that blight be determined on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
  4. Enacting state legislation mandating that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) be limited to the length of time required to complete public infrastructure improvements within a given TIF district. This would reduce the ability of rent-seeking private developers to collude with local officials to subsidize development projects.

These proposals could also be enacted through ballot initiatives, if the state allows them. As eminent domain is primarily a local issue, Congress is a less likely venue for legislative relief. However, it is possible for Congress to tie federal development and highway funding to takings behavior (as they presently do for myriad other “carrot-and-stick” purposes). For example, a bill was introduced in the previous legislative session that would cut off federal development grant money for 10 years to any state that permitted an eminent domain condemnation for the benefit of a private developer.

With the five-year anniversary of Kelo coming up next summer, a renewed interest in the harm caused by eminent domain abuse will hopefully materialize.