In a press release issued today by the bank, BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison, said, "The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong. One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."
"BB&T's principled stand sets an example that should inspire other lenders and should become the new industry standard," said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. The Institute for Justice litigated the
Kelo case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for someone else's private use in the guise of "economic development." Mellor said, "You can and should accomplish economic development through private negotiation, not the use of government force through eminent domain. As far as we're concerned, BB&T now stands for Best Bank in Town."
The U.S. Congress is now considering bipartisan legislation that would federally de-fund eminent domain for private use. Although the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would block any federal funds going to private development projects on land taken through eminent domain, the Senate has yet to vote on companion legislation. Last week, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), however, commented on an eminent domain case that was argued before the Ohio Supreme Court. The case involves Carl and Joy Gamble, homeowners from Norwood, Ohio, who could lose their home through eminent domain for a privately owned mall and high-end apartments. Frist wrote in an op-ed published by the
Cincinnati Enquirer, "I have some pretty clear thoughts about the [Norwood] case: The Gambles should keep their home and the developer should either build around it or cancel the development plans altogether. . . . Quite simply, no family should ever risk losing its home because a government wants to help a private developer."
Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney who argued the
Kelo case, said, "Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional. BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights."
Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Gambles' case before the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "Throughout the country, banks have been silent partners in the unholy alliance between local governments and private developers. Banks finance developers and cities that use eminent domain to take someone's home or business and turn the land into new stores, condos, and office space. Others will hopefully follow BB&T's courageous example."
Jan 25, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
BB&T announces eminent domain policy. Good for them!
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.
The commercial lending policy change comes in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, a controversial Supreme Court decision in June that said governments can seize personal property to make room for private development projects.
The court's ruling cleared the way for an expansion of eminent domain authority historically used primarily for utilities, rights of way and other public facilities.
"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong," said BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison.
"One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that 15 homes in a waterfront neighborhood in New London, Conn., could be acquired by the city, turned over to private developers and ultimately replaced by a luxury hotel, upscale condos and office buildings. The city justified the project as a way to generate tax revenue and jobs.
Critics charged that by letting local governments decide what constitutes a "public purpose," the court abdicated its duty to protect citizens from unconstitutional seizures of their property under the Fifth Amendment.
In a stinging dissent by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, she wrote that, since the decision, "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
But that may change. Thirty-eight states have recently passed or are considering laws that would ban the use of eminent domain for private development. A similar bill that would apply a federal ban has passed the House, and President Bush has voiced his support for such reform.
The bipartisan Private Property Rights Protection Act would revoke for two fiscal years all federal economic development financing – a significantly large amount of money for most localities and states – from local governments that condemn privately owned houses and other non-blighted property so that they can transfer it to private developers.
"While we're certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could not wait any longer to address," said BB&T Chief Credit Officer Ken Chalk. "We're a company where our values dictate our decision-making and operating standards. From that standpoint, this was a straightforward decision; it's simply the right thing to do."
Winston-Salem-based BB&T Corporation and its subsidiaries offer full-service commercial and retail banking and additional financial services such as insurance, investments, retail brokerage, corporate finance, consumer finance, treasury services, international banking, leasing and trust.
BB&T operates more than 1,400 financial centers in the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Indiana and Washington, D.C.
With $109.2 billion in assets, BB&T Corp. is the nation's ninth largest financial holding company. More information about BB&T Corp. is available at www.BBandT.com.
Jan 23, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
From Craig Biddle at The Objective Standard:
Dear Friend of Capitalism,I am pleased to announce the official launch of The Objective Standard: www.TheObjectiveStandard.com. You can now see the contents of our premier issue, read our statement of purpose (also reprinted below), check out our upcoming events, and subscribe to the print or online version of the journal.If you plan to subscribe to the print version--which I highly recommend, since issues will average 100 pages in length--please do so by February 17th to ensure that your first issue is included in our initial mailing, scheduled for early March. Access to the online version of the journal will be available to all subscribers in mid-March.Whatever your choice of subscription, we look forward to providing you with philosophical journalism as it might and ought to be. Please feel free to forward this information to anyone who you think might be interested in The Objective Standard.Best wishes,
Craig Biddle
Editor, The Objective Standard
www.theobjectivestandard.com
Statement of PurposeThe Objective Standard is a quarterly journal of culture and politics based on the idea that for every human concern—from personal matters to foreign policy, from the sciences to the arts, from education to legislation—there are demonstrably objective standards by reference to which we can assess what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. The purpose of the journal is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies accordingly.We maintain that the standards of both knowledge and value derive from the facts of reality; that truth is discovered only by means of reason, i.e., through observation and logic; that the factual requirements of man's life on earth determine his moral values; that the selfish pursuit of one's own life-serving goals is virtuous; and that individual rights are moral principles defining the fundamental requirements of a civilized society.We stand opposed to the notion that the standards of knowledge and value are not factual but subjective (feeling-based) or other-worldly (faith-based); that truth is ultimately dictated by majority opinion or a "supernatural" being's will; that democratic consensus or "God's word" determines what is moral; that sacrifice for the common good or in obedience to "God's commands" is virtuous; and that rights are social conventions or "divine decrees."In stark contrast to these philosophic approaches, ours is a philosophy of reality, reason, egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism. In a word, we uphold Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and it serves as our frame of reference in analyzing the cultural and political issues of the day. [link]
Jan 20, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Craig Biddle's The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics, is now online and taking subscriptions. Thefirst issue will feature thefollowing articles: "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein; The Hierarchy of Knowledge: The Most Neglected Issue in Education Lisa VanDamme; Enlightenment Science and its Fall David Harriman; and Exposing Anti-Muslim "Conspiracies" Elan Journo.Jan 20, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
The Objectivist Club at New York University is excited to announce the following upcoming event. For more information and to register, please visit http://nyu.objectivismonline.net
Why Originalism Won't Die: Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation
A speech by Dr. Tara Smith.
Details: DATE: Thursday, February 02, 2006 TIME: 7:00 pm (Doors @ 6:30PM) LOCATION: 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 @ NYU Kimmel Center - Room 914
DESCRIPTION: In the debate over judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the theory of Originalism (advocated by Antonin Scalia, among others) has been subjected to seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support. What explains its resilient appeal? Why do many continue to regard it as the most reasonable basis for judicial interpretation?
This lecture will answer these questions in part, by identifying the fundamental weakness of the leading alternatives to Originalism and in part, by demonstrating that the heart of Originalism's appeal – its promise of judicial objectivity – is illusory. All camps in this debate, we will see, suffer from! serious misunderstandings of the nature of objectivity.
