Two victories

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 4, 2002]

HereÕs another win for the Institute for Justice and the public advocacy group, Castle Coalition. On August 26, Issues & Views reported on more government abuse of eminent domain when, in separate towns in Arizona, whole sections were condemned under "redevelopment" statutes. In some cases, the condemned land, that once housed residents and small businesses, remained idle for years, while city or town councils tried to lure lucrative big businesses to the sites.

Now, thanks to the diligent work of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, the Castle Coalition, and many residents of Scottsdale, Arizona, that cityÕs original order, that condemned the downtown section, has been reversed, and property rights restored to private citizens. An IJ press release tells how it was done:

Three years after being named "Most Livable City" by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Scottsdale declared its downtown a slum. Did the City's downtown deteriorate rapidly? Absolutely not. The slum finding was required by state law to designate the downtown's several "redevelopment areas." Redevelopment designations authorize Arizona cities to use eminent domain.

Following the designation, the downtown area languished. Long-term leases were difficult to sign. As rumors circulated about developers conspiring with council members to condemn their property for various redevelopment projects, business owners feared investing additional resources. Developers also purchased property, purposely left the buildings vacant and refused to maintain common areas. The developers then had the gall to use those conditions to justify their proposed takings.

Fed up with redevelopment, property owners asked the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter to draft a Citizens' Petition requesting the City Council to repeal downtown redevelopment areas. Two similar petitions had failed previously. After attending a Castle Coalition training seminar held in March, activists collected more than 100 signatures from local property owners and merchants and worked with the Institute for Justice, Arizona chapter, to coordinate an aggressive media campaign.

Required to vote on the petition within 30 days, the Council took up deliberations in September. Armed with two editorials supporting the petition and with two campaign pledges from newly elected council members, it appeared the petition might carry by one vote. However, public testimony and media scrutiny changed the tide, and the petition carried unanimously, thus clearing downtown Scottsdale's cloud of eminent domain.

And, in a different kind of victory, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) succeeded in getting the Washington State University School of Law to officially recognize the student group, Law Students Pro-Life. On two previous occasions, the Student Bar Association had voted against such recognition, although itÕs hard to understand how it could justify rejecting this particular group, while accepting others. Thor Halvorssen, FIREÕs executive director, gives details:

Prior to last nightÕs meeting, the Student Bar Association had twice denied Law Students Pro-Life (LSPL) recognition as an official campus organization, thus making the group ineligible for funding, student office space, a campus mail address, and listing in the admissions brochure. In a September 9, 2002 letter of rejection to LSPL, the Association termed "the catching issue" what they labeled "the narrowness of your groupÕs interests and goals." The SBA "felt that the organization was not touching on all possible Pro Life issues" because it did not have an "anti-death penalty" position in its constitution. The second rejection was delivered to LSPL on September 23 without comment. Shortly after that second decision, LSPL was informed that the administration would not overrule the Student Bar Association or take any corrective action.

FIRE wrote to the president of Washington University and to the dean of the Law School on September 30, urging them to do the right thing and spare themselves the embarrassment of fighting publicly against freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. FIRE pointed out that the Association had rightly recognized other organizations whose missions some might find "narrow," demonstrating an abusive double standard. FIRE also reminded Washington University of its own published statement that it was "committed to the principles of freedom of religion and speech." When the University neither replied to FIRE nor acted on behalf of freedom and dignity, FIRE began a campaign of public exposure. FIRE also issued an open letter with the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri to the Student Bar Association, asking them to "reaffirm their commitment to tolerance, openness, and pluralism." Law School Dean Joel Seligman, receiving numerous calls from national media and hundreds of emails from concerned individuals, instructed the SBA to hold an extraordinary session to discuss the recognition of LSPL. A majority of the SBA members who spoke at this meeting voiced objections to the recognition of LSPL. The meeting was adjourned and a follow-up meeting set for Monday, October 14, 2002.

FIRE immediately began circulating a national petition on behalf of Washington University LSPL. In just 48 hours, more than 200 professors, law students, undergraduates, and private citizens from around the country signed the petition, which called on the Student Bar Association and the administration to preserve "freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech" by recognizing LSPL. "A great university," the petition urged, "does not impose a dreary uniformity of beliefs."

"FIRE's advocacy made all the difference," said Jordan Siverd, chairman of Law Students Pro-Life. "FIRE helped the SBA see what the problem was. The ACLU student chapter and the ACLU-Eastern Missouri also were very helpful in securing equal access to the school's facilities and resources. Their participation shows FIRE's ability to build coalitions on behalf of liberty. FIRE framed the issue for the students in such a way that they could really understand that their decision was a denial of equal access, contrary to the core principles of any great university."

"This should serve as a reminder to all administrators who are concerned with preserving intellectual diversity at their institution," said Charles Kors, president of FIRE. "If they present their campuses as centers of individual rights and legal equality, they must not dictate the political and moral views of their students and student organizations. The manner of this victory for liberty and legal equality also reveals the profound truth of what Justice Louis Brandeis observed so well: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Learn more about the status of cases currently represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization dedicated to preserving liberty on college campuses.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views