Eminent Domain Letter To State Legislators

[Groovenstein]

This is a letter I just composed which I plan to send to Nebraska state legislators. I'd love some feedback so I can make it the best darn letter it can be.

When I am satisfied with the final version, I will post it in the activism forum with the intent that those who wish to can copy it and send it to their state representatives. For the purpose of sending it to your state representative, you may all copy this as you wish and make any changes you wish without any attribution necessary.

In fact, some changes will be necessary (e.g. "senators", "Nebraska") so please read the letter carefully and proofread your changes before you send it. Especially if you don't want to volunteer your time like I offered to do! Boy, that would stink to get a call from your senator asking for your help and you saying "Huh?".

Thanks for your comments.

__________________________

Dear Senators,

As you may know, the United States Supreme Court dealt a fierce blow to our property rights in its recent Kelo v. New London decision. Specifically, the Court held that the proposed confiscation of homes to transfer to other private entities pursuant to a city development plan qualifies as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. You may read the slip opinion at the following link: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf.

Despite the Court's erroneous conclusion, there is good news. No, it is not that I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico. Rather, it is that the Court gives you, the state government, the chance to minimize the negative impact its decision has on property rights: "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its use of the takings power." (PDF p. 21).

I ask you to take this opportunity the Court gives you to ensure that Connecticut's failures do not happen in Nebraska. Please eliminate or restrict the power of our State and cities to take property through eminent domain. This is a moral and practical imperative.

Property rights are among an individual's most essential rights. People can not conjure out of thin air the things they need to survive. Those things must be earned through persistent mental and physical effort. The lifestyle we enjoy in America is because most of us recognize this fundamental aspect of human existence. Eminent domain fails morally because it takes from a person what he or she has rightfully earned.

Eliminating or restricting eminent domain is also highly practical. As the Court noted, many states already have restrictions greater than those under the federal Constitution. Some states have constitutional restrictions, while others have statutory ones. Nebraska could certainly look to those states' provisions for guidance in structuring its own.

I understand that your role as legislators is time-consuming. Because this issue is very important to me even though I do not own any real property, I offer some of my time and effort on this important issue. As I will soon be a third-year student at the University of Nebraska College of Law, I have skills to help research and draft a good provision.

Please contact me by email or phone to discuss what we can do to take this important step to preserve property rights in Nebraska. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Matthew Stein, B.A., J.D. candidate

[my address and phone number]

[Robin Schenck]

Despite the Court's erroneous conclusion, there is good news.  No, it is not that I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.  Rather, it is that the Court gives you, the state government, the chance to minimize the negative impact its decision has on property rights: "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its use of the takings power."  (PDF p. 21).

Drop the Geico line. It's already a cliché and distracts the reader away from the goal of the letter - never use clichés in writing.

Property rights are among...Eliminating or restricting...I understand that...

While what you have in those three paragraphs are great in terms of content and are perfect grammatically, all of the sentences lack any sense of flow and are very choppy when read. Try combining some of them into more complex sentences and toss in some nice transitions or signposts. If I have some free time tomorrow I'll rewrite some what you wrote to give an example.

Eliminating or restricting eminent domain is also highly practical.

How is it practical? Just because other states have restrictions? The two don't fit with each other. Also, using examples of laws of other states are fine to back up your point, but you should actually list and describe some of them along with their reference numbers (I can't seem to remember how they're indexed, but I'm guessing you should know).

In its current form, it's a decent letter, but that's where it stops. Maybe it's just late for me and I missed it when reading, but I couldn't identify anywhere in the letter that proposes what exactly can be done by your state's legislators. Essentially, you need to propose a plan and describe what they can do to eliminate or restrict eminent domain. Hell, if you used some of your education and experience, you could even draft a bill and send that in with your letter.

Most importantly, personalize your letters and do not just use "Dear Senators." It will most likely be read by an intern or staffer at first, but if it does eventually end up in front of one of your Senators, then they'll appreciate the letter a bit more.

[Groovenstein]

Drop the Geico line.  It's already a cliche . . .

I don't know that I agree that it's assumed cliche status. (And with an exam and four shows coming up I'm not really interested in figuring that out at the moment.) Regardless, I'm going to drop it because I realize that I have limited space and I think the line is expendable.

While what you have in those three paragraphs are great in terms of content and are perfect grammatically

Yes! Score one for the guy who had a dreadful English education and little writing experience!

all of the sentences lack any sense of flow and are very choppy when read.  Try combining some of them into more complex sentences and toss in some nice transitions or signposts.

Good tip. Over the next couple days I will certainly do that. This was a pretty early draft so I haven't read it aloud several times like I usually do.

If I have some free time tomorrow I'll rewrite some what you wrote to give an example.

Great. I'd be delighted to read what you do.

. . . I couldn't identify anywhere in the letter that proposes what exactly can be done by your state's legislators.  Essentially, you need to propose a plan and describe what they can do to eliminate or restrict eminent domain.  Hell, if you used some of your education and experience, you could even draft a bill and send that in with your letter.

This raises one of the fundamental issues I have with this project. I'd especially like the input of those who have written to legislators before.

Should I send a long, detailed letter with comprehensive analysis and plan? Or would a shorter letter that just raises basic issues, similar to the one I have now, be more appropriate?

About proposing a specific plan, I agree that's a good idea whether I do a short or long letter. I made a terrible error in not telling them what the law in Nebraska is currently. That's why we revise!

. . . personalize your letters and do not just use "Dear Senators." . . .  if it does eventually end up in front of one of your Senators, then they'll appreciate the letter a bit more.

I intended to do that, and I agree with you.

Thank you for your remarks.

[softwareNerd]

Should I send a long, detailed letter with comprehensive analysis and plan?  Or would a shorter letter that just raises basic issues, similar to the one I have now, be more appropriate?

First, an assistant will read the letter. The senator's office will already have a reply for "anti-New London" letters. You will receive one. The senator will be presented with a cumulative number. He'll be told how many such letters were received.

Write the letter. When you post it in the forum, I'll send a copy to "my guys" too. However, the letter will be more of a vote against the SCOTUS decision, rather than a explanation of why it was wrong.

(I'm not being cynical. This is just the way it is with people who receive many letters every day from so many constituents.)

There will be a few letters where the assistant will take some special action, or might even highlight some lines for the senator to read. These will be the exceptions. So, the question is: how to motivate the "gatekeeper" (i.e. the assistant) to give your letter special priority.

[Groovenstein]

So, the question is: how to motivate the "gatekeeper" (i.e. the assistant) to give your letter special priority.

Do you have any suggestions in this regard? The tone of your message suggests that a shorter letter is more appropriate as a long, detailed one is likely to be a waste of time. But it seems like a letter offering a comprehensive plan, and perhaps including my draft of a bill as someone suggested earlier, would be more likely to motivate as you say.

I'm happy to put in some hours doing some research and whatnot. And I'm happy to make that available to everyone on here that wishes to use my work. But I have no experience with this, so I'd like to know if that's the best approach, a waste of time, etc. In your experience, would the benefit be worth the cost? Specifically, do you think that a thorough letter is more likely to get through the gate?

[softwareNerd]

Here is a suggestion: shoot out a very brief letter and see what response you get. Then, decide whether it is worth pursuing, and how.

Other than politicians, I think businesses should also be made aware that there is a group of customers who are "anti Eminent domain". That was the reason I sent a letter to Wal*Mart. I intend to follow-up on their "canned" response, suggesting that they should take the moral high-ground and not be a third-party to any eminent-domain actions.

[Groovenstein]

Here is a suggestion: shoot out a very brief letter and see what response you get. Then, decide whether it is worth pursuing, and how.

I like this "feeler" approach initially. I'll give it some thought over the next couple days (after my Corporations exam tomorrow--yikes!). What I'll probably do is just have a few different files, the first of which I'll turn into a short version and post here.