[Note: we were all set to be the "firstest with the mostest" on these issues, but, as is often the case, Professor Kanner beat us to the punch ("The Clippers and Eminent Domain - It Was Only a Matter of Time").]
What we're talking about, of course, is the recent (and ongoing) controversy about the racist statements (allegedly) made by Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team, and the reactions, which include "Eminent Domain: The Real Solution to Scumbag Sports Owners." In that piece, someone named Harvey Wasserman opines that the owners of the Clippers -- and the Washington, D.C., professional football franchise -- do not deserve to own their respective teams:
Why do we allow our precious sports clubs to be the playthings of a bunch of wealthy degenerates?Why aren’t the football, baseball, basketball, hockey and other major sports franchises so many of us so passionately love and support not owned by the communities that give them their life? Why is our nation powerless to remove the racist logo from a public stadium just down the street from the White House and Congress?
Although we share Wasserman's sentiments -- no one likes a guy who says stuff like this, and although reasonable minds perhaps can differ about the D.C. football team name, we find it easy to understand how "Redskins" is offensive to a large segment of the population -- we think his conclusion that cities should use the power of eminent domain to take the Clippers and the Redskins from their owners is completely and utterly wrongheaded.
First, what is it about eminent domain that seemingly makes it the first thing some people think about when coming up with "creative" solutions to some problems? See, for example, the underwater mortgage issue, grand dreams to resuscitate failing cities, or even to keep sports franchises from leaving town. As we've opined many times here, eminent domain should be reserved for those situations where the property truly will be put to public use and where the taking is necessary to further the public's use. As the California Court of Appeal noted in the case about the attempted taking of the Oakland Raiders, eminent domain is the "most awesome grant of power." City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 220 Cal. Rptr. 153, 155 (Cal. App. 1985). Accordingly, it should never be used lightly. It cheapens the process.
Second, there should be no ulterior motive on the part of the condemnor. The latter works both ways -- eminent domain should never be used to benefit a private party (as in Kelo, and the New Jersey/Brooklyn Nets fiasco), nor should it be used simply to hurt someone, even if they may deserve it. Thus, it should never be exercised for spite, to take property from its "undeserving" owner. There isn't enough money in the world to pay all the just compensation awards if you are going to launch a program to take property simply because its owner is an a**hole.
Third, speaking of just compensation, are the taxpayers of Los Angeles really ready to pay up to half-a-billion-dollars (as Wasserman acknowledges) to purchase the Clippers? If so, Donald Sterling is going to have the last laugh on this one, and the taxpayers will end up crying in their overpriced arena beers.
Finally, do you really want a professional sports team to be owned and operated by a municipal government? There is at least one professional sports franchise that is not privately owned, but that seems a far cry from having the "teams run by the cities, counties and/or states in which they reside, and to which they rightfully belong" as Wasserman suggests.
When discussing this issue with our colleagues, we received many responses, most of them unprintable. But a couple of them can be reproduced here:
- This guy complains about too much government (i.e., public subsidies to private sports franchises) and then seeks to fix the problem with more government. I'm always leery of any proposal that claims to fix problems caused by government by adding more government. It's like adding a second fox to guard the henhouse.
It seems to me that it is yet another example of the misuse of eminent domain by stretching it too far.... Government should govern. The limits of its powers are recognized in the Constitution. It should not be in business, other than perhaps to run itself and also in the public education business.
We hope the idea of taking the Clippers by eminent domain is a mere flight of fancy, and not an idea that takes hold.
