The official blog of the Libertarian Party
January 26, 2006
BB&T Bank Will Not Fund Eminent Domain Abuse
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the North Carolina-based BB&T Bank announced it will not lend money to commercial development projects that are built on land seized by local governments through eminent domain.
BB&T Bank officials said using eminent domain for private developers violated their corporate philosophy. Chief Executive John Allison said in a written statement, "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."
BB&T did not want to wait for Congress to pass legislation prohibiting federal funds from going to private development that relied on eminent domain and decided to take the initiative. BB&T's Chief Credit Officer, Ken Chalk, stated, "While we're certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could not wait any longer to address. We're a company where our values dictate our decision-making and operating standards." He further added, "From that standpoint, this was a straightforward decision; it's simply the right thing to do."
BB&T executives have not been shy in promoting their Objectivist beliefs. The company's website lists 10 primary values that guide its corporate decisions. Here is a quote from a page on the company's website under the heading of "Reason (Objectivity)", "Mankind has a specific means of survival, which is his ability to think, i.e., his capacity to reason logically from the facts of reality as presented to his five senses." The company donated to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte to endow the study of the moral foundations of capitalism, according to the Charlotte Observer.
As of now, BB&T Bank is alone among major banks in not doing business with commercial development projects that rely on the use of eminent domain, according to the Washington Post. Bank of America Corp. and SunTrust Banks Inc. have both stated that they have not considered adopting a similar policy in the near future.
Property rights groups like the Institute for Justice have commended BB&T's decision. The Institute for Justice's Vice President and General Counsel, Chip Mellor, stated in a press release, "BB&T's principled stand sets an example that should inspire other lenders and should become the new industry standard. You can and should accomplish economic development through private negotiation, not the use of government force through eminent domain."
Hammer of Truth, the Volokh Conspiracy and Below the Beltway each provide their own insight to the story.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 04:31 PM
Reader Comments:
As if anybody who can buy off the government will not already have the financing they need to cash in? This is just an empty useless PR jesture.
Eminent domain the white house.
QUOTE: "Eminent domain the white house."
The Kelo decision wasn't Bush's doing. It was the doing of the Supreme Court. And there have been attempts to employ Eminent Domain on property owned by those Justices that voted in the majority.
QUOTE: "As if anybody who can buy off the government will not already have the financing they need to cash in? This is just an empty useless PR jesture."
Even if, it still brings attention to the serious issue of Eminent Domain abuses. And with that in regard, I must agree with paleolib.
Alex Peak
President, College Libertarians of Towson
Towson University, Maryland
wwwnew.towson.edu/clt
I sent BB&T a note thanking them, and they're apparently getting enough emails about the issue that they've set up a form letter to respond to it. It's clearly a big deal with Americans, and we need to focus on that.
Ok correction, eminent domain the supreme court.
But Bush did a lot of everything else.
I'm proud to be a member with BB&T.
Thank goodness for John Allison and BB&T!! I am closing all of my accounts at BofA tomorrow and transferring everything to BB&T. The fact that developers can always get funding from other sources is beside the point....they can't get them from BB&T. And as any objectionist knows -- I will live my life by my creed and others are entitled to do the same.
Well, at least she was being honest.
In announcing her reasons for opposing the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said straight out, "If one is pro-choice in this day and age, with the balance of the Court at stake, one cannot vote to confirm Judge Alito."
No, I'm not getting into the abortion debate. What concerns me is what Feinstein said next: "I, for one, really believe there comes a time when you just have to stand up, particularly when you know the majority of people stand as you do." After citing several polls, she said, "Around here when it comes to the issue of abortion the tail wags the dog. The minority is the dominant voice, while the majority of people out there feel very differently on the question. A majority of people, it is clear, in the United States of America believe that a woman should have certain rights of privacy -- privacy that is limited by the State's interest to protect potential life, but a certain right to privacy. If you know this nominee is not going to respect those rights but holds differing views, then you have to stand up."
According to other recent national polls, a majority (61%) favors the death penalty "for persons convicted of murder." A majority (58%) thinks a person does not have "a moral right to end his or her own life" unless seriously physically ill. A majority (52%) say legal immigrants "mostly hurt" the economy. A majority (77%) thinks burning the US flag should be a crime. A majority (53%) calls the Patriot Act "a necessary tool." And a majority (65%) say "Americans will have to give up some of their personal freedoms in order to make the country safe from terrorist attacks."
The courts are one of the few bulwarks against the tyranny of the majority. Too bad the senior senator from the most populous state in the Union doesn't realize this.
Oops, posted that in the wrong place -- sorry!
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. ~Larry Flynt
I don't see how this is an empty PR jesture. If you mean that it won't have much impact, I'd agree with that, because as you say there are many other financers out there and BB&T's refusal won't really hurt anyone who gets property through imminent domain. For BB&T though, they're giving up huge profit oppurtunities in order to make a principled stand. They should be applauded loudly. In no way is this "empty."
Now if we could only stop them from being snitches for the IRS.
I suggest every state and local party that has a bank account write to "their" bank and see what the bank's position on this is. And urge members to do the same. Then open accounts with other banks in your state that take the BB&T position.
It is good to hear that a bank will not reward a state or local government that takes private property through eminant domain to reward an interest group, developer, or whathaveyou. I commend BB&T for their stand.
Good. Now if only we could get groups like Chase, and Commerce Bank to committ to the same principle...though that might be a little more difficult.
"And as any objectionist knows -- I will live my life by my creed and others are entitled to do the same." -jason b.
Objectionist? Never heard of you guys. Is that a play on words mocking Objectivists?
Creech, that's a brilliant idea. Organize a movement to make BB&T the official Libertarian bank. I'm going to go check out their rates myself next week.
I was reading Robert Novak's column on saturday concerning a conference of Republican mayors. The column stated that a majority of the mayors agreed and praised the Supreme Court's Kelo decision concerning eminant domain. One mayor voiced his opposition it and he was treated as a pariah by the group. If this is true (and I believe it is), it is dispicable.
The eminant domain issue is just one more reason why Americans ought to vote Libertarian. I believe that Libertarians should do all they can to get their message out to voters and to a majority of the public. It is clear to me that both major parties will not defend the right to private property. The only party that will, will be the Libertarian Party.
Makes me proud to have been doing business with BBandT for many years now.
Hmm, I was considering changing banks to get a closer branch with Shuntrust... but I guess I'll stay with BBT. Actually, it would be worth pushing for a Constitutional amendment abolishing eminent domain...
| 
As if anybody who can buy off the government will not already have the financing they need to cash in? This is just an empty useless PR jesture.
Posted by: Peter Roth at January 26, 2006 04:41 PM