A couple days ago I blogged about what I now know to be the Institute for Injustice, wondering why this entity that calls itself the Institute for Justice, claiming to work to help victims of eminent domain abuse and freedom of speech ,was not all over the Steve Doeung Carter Avenue Eminent Domain Abuse Case like a fat fly on a Texas Longhorn.In the blogging about the Institute for Injustice I asked if anyone knew if this was a legit operation or not.
Well. I soon heard from Chris who had heard from another Chris, that being Chris Grodecki of the Castle Coalition and Institute for Justice.
I'll copy the comment from Chris below, followed by two comments from the ever ubiquitous Anonymous....
Chris said...
Regarding the Institute for Justice, I have been down that road before. They do not get involved in eminent domain disputes involving energy companies because the "public good" argument tends to favor energy or utility companies.
As Chris Grodecki of the Castle Coalition and Institute for Justice wrote to me in November of 2008:
"As you may know, we provide resources for property owners threatened by eminent domain for private economic development. Situations that involve energy companies are bit more complicated because those companies are considered common carriers. Because they are licensed by the government to provide services to the general public, their uses of eminent domain are very likely to be considered as "public use" by the courts. We, unfortunately, do not get directly involved in situations that regard takings for "public use"; that's not a judgment, however, on the merits of your situation, which while fully legal, doesn't necessarily make it any less wrong."
Activate your grassroots! Educate yourself and talk to your neighbors. It does take stamina and patience, however, because you will have to "saddle your own horse." Compare notes with our experience: Spectra Energy
Anonymous then said...
Let me get this right: the Institute for Justice only takes cases they can win and will not take cases involving energy companies because THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT THEY ARE UNBEATABLE. Either that claim is pretty absurd or this Steve on Carter guy's been doing some mighty impressive "lawyering" --esp. with being disabled and untrained in the law in any way. With this kind of attitude from self-proclaimed public interest firms fighting for justice and liberty, old Steve might just be better off fighting on his own --with "We the people" supporting him in any way possible. This kind of stuff is what gives lawyers and even the legal system a bad name and Shakespeare...nevermind.
And then Anonymous had more to say...
One more thing: if the services to the "public good" provided by these oil and gas companies are so overwhelmingly helpful to the American public and even the economy, then let Wal-mart and big trucking companies have the rights of eminent domain to take people's front yards to provide overnight stops so that they can drive safely in their work to provide cheaper consumer goods of all sorts and get the needed rest without having to find sparse and costly truck stops/motels. Besides, trucks idling overnight on people's front yards don't hardly ever blow up and destroy whole neighborhoods like a 16-24 inch natural gas lines do on a fairly regular intervals.
On a totally different, yet related to the Anonymous comments, note. Anonymous typed in his comments twice. This happens when commentators do not notice the "comments moderated" message. I have to moderate the comments or it would be an awful lot of bother to go through the various posts to delete inappropriate comments. Every day there are dozens of spam comments, nonsense comments and demented comments. Moderating the comments makes it way simpler. Sorry you had to go to the bother of typing in your comments twice, Anonymous, but I'm glad you did.
So that means they would help the 90 property owners being misplaced by the Trinity River Vision, right?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous---
ReplyDeleteI suspect with the Trinity River Vision eminent domain abuse cases the Institute for Injustice would say they don't take on such cases because they can't beat City Hall. Or a corrupt city government.
I think it's likely the only type eminent domain abuse cases the Institute for Injustice takes on are the ultra absurd, like a guy trying to take a chunk of his next door neighbor's yard via eminent domain, because he wants to build a bigger dog house. The Institute for Injustice would probably be all over that case, particularly if the dog owner was willing to pay their retainer fee.
You might want to consider reviewing the Institute for Justice's website, the related Castle Coalition website, and the extensive online coverage of the Institute for Justice's battles against eminent domain abuse. Not all battles have been successful (for example the Kelo case that went all the way to the Supreme Court).
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's more fun to be a flame-thrower than to bother actually looking into the reality of a situation. But if you did you would find that IJ is not a large organization and is funded solely through donations and grants. Thus, it is an organization with a limited purpose--in this case, challenging abuse of eminent domain for private development.
I don't believe there is a non-profit in existence that can take on every single case or cause that comes through the front door, even if they all have merit. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I find it sad that you would trash a group that has been fighting the eminent domain battle for almost 20 years and has been willing to take on government entities around the country in doing so. I imagine it's because you haven't bothered to actually check them out.
For your convenience, the websites you might (assuming some intellectual honesty on your part) bother with: www.ij.org, www.castlecoalition.org.
Jen---
ReplyDeleteWhen the Institute for Justice ignores multiple contacts with requests for information and help, it invites flamethrowing.
And if the IFJ help area is limited to certain types of eminent domain abuse, it should reflect that on its website, rather than use verbiage that makes it sound as if IFJ is a champion for those who's property rights are being abused and freedom of speech trifled with.
Rather than throw flames yourself, and assuming intellectual honesty on your part, it might behoove you to read about the eminent domain/freedom of speech issue to which this blog, to which you are commenting, refers.
I would be happy to read any materials you would like to send me although the purpose of my post was not to comment on the merits of the particular case you advocate for, but rather to challenge the assumptions you have made about IJ because I do not believe they are accurate.
ReplyDeleteIn full disclosure, I was a litigator for IJ for five years and am quite well versed on the issue of eminent domain. I have testified in state legislatures, on IJ's behalf, in an effort to encourage better eminent domain laws that protect private property rights. I no longer work there and am not speaking on IJ's behalf here, except to the extent I still support what they do.
I am sorry that you are unable to understand the language used on IJ's website or the Castle Coalition website. I suspect that the problem is less that the websites are unclear and more that you believe your particular cause is more worthy of time and attention than the hundreds and thousands of other inquiries IJ receives annually seeking help.
In a perfect world, I suppose an IJ attorney would sit down personally and explain in detail to each person who contacts the organization the reasons why a given case cannot be taken or a particular area is outside the scope of IJ's mission.
This not being a perfect world, and resources being limited, the handful of IJ attorneys instead devote their time to fighting whatever battles they are able to take on--and contrary to your assertions, every battle IJ takes on is an uphill battle because every single case is against the government. As you may or may not know, in constitutional law the government always has the advantage.
I think Jen is a snob and is rather rude. I also think that if IJ clearly wanted to affect change then they would take on an eminent domain case that would challenge the status quo...considering Oil & Gas companies "public utilities". That premise is absurd. Chesapeake does not run gas lines to people's homes for heating and such...they drill for profit, pure and simple. And then that money is given to legislators in this very city of Fort Worth to ensure and protect big oil & gas companies' interests. Steve and the residents of Carter Ave do not need a Jen telling them that this isn't a perfect world. We also don't need her condescending attitude. She neither cares nor is concerned with the low income residents and minority families that live on Carter Ave. We will continue to be abused because those who have the ability to help will continue to refuse and point out that we're not the only case around.
ReplyDeleteJen, it's nice to know that at least you're taking notice and even engaging in the discussion. How does IJ go about evaluating possible cases? And does having a substantial amount of money in a legal defense-type of a fund play any role in the decision? That's to say that such a fund shows the level of public concern and the public's willingness to "put their money where their mouth is". Have you read the 01/13/10 cover story in the FW Weekly about how the City of FW has colluded with Corporate philistine (sorry, if there are any Philistines still around) Chesapeake Energy to deny Steve his legal and property rights and even to deprive him of his free speech rights? His case is ripe for challenging not only unjust but outdated laws and corruptions at all levels of government. What does Matt Miller think of the many current anti-Institute for Justice conditions in his hometown? Please encourage him to "pipe up!" He apparently did just that in Plano last month.
ReplyDelete