Today's Inquirer has a piece on an issue I've covered before -- an attempt in Ardmore, Pennsylvania to condemn private property (in this case, charming older commercial buildings), and hand it to private developers. It's now looming large as an election issue -- without respect to ordinary party politics:

Eminent domain is about as popular these days as taxes and jackhammers.

The unpopularity of a government's right to take private land for economic development is fueling passions among voters heading into the fall election for seven of the 14 Lower Merion Township commissioners, who have voted to use that device in a controversial $160 million redevelopment project in Ardmore.

"It's a very big issue," said Commissioner James Ettelson, who is running for reelection. "A large group of people want to know if you're for or against."

An informal canvass of the 14 candidates in the seven races indicates that enough anti-eminent-domain commissioners could be elected to tip the balance against the plan.

In March, the board of commissioners voted, 10-3, for the so-called Option B, which would authorize using eminent domain to demolish 10 buildings that house nine businesses on Lancaster Avenue, in Ardmore's historic district. In their place would go new buildings for retail use, apartments and parking.

I think that what really has the voting public ticked off is the way they went about doing it. Instead of honestly admitting that they wanted more tax dollars and could get it by taking property from Owner A and giving it to Owner B (bad enough it itself), they claimed Ardmore was "blighted." This doesn't set well with voters, for two reasons. One is that people don't like being tricked and lied to. There's nothing "blighted" about Ardmore. It's one of the wealthiest areas in the Philadelphia suburbs, and yes, the commercial buildings are older, but they have irreplaceable charm that people like, thriving businesses that have been there a long time, and few to no vacancies. The idea of calling it "blighted" is comical, and people who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their homes have been having fun telling people they live in a "blighted" area. (Such comic relief, however, does not translate into votes for those whose rhetorical manipulations provided amusement...)

Of course, there's another group of voters who aren't quite as cynical. Maybe they lack a sense of humor, but they just don't like the idea of being told they're living in a "blighted" area in which they've gone into debt to live.

Add to that cranks like me who read the daily newspaper. I didn't especially like the characterization of those opposing the misuse of eminent domain (and misuse of the word "blight") as "anti-development," as I've never thought of myself as opposing development. I just don't like Big Brother style central planning or misuse of power and language.

I'm glad there's an election and eminent domain has become a question. I'm also glad it doesn't involve party politics. Public sentiment is running 9-1 against misuse of eminent domain -- a situation which frightens both Democrats and Republicans:

But if the candidates who oppose the use of eminent domain in Ardmore win in the wards representing Rosemont/Villanova, South Wynnewood/East Ardmore, Bryn Mawr/Haverford, and Penn Wynne/Wynnewood, Option B might not survive.

That prospect is disturbing to departing commissioner Ken Davis, also chairman of the county Republican Committee. "I'm pretty pessimistic about what the next board looks like, not Democrat or Republican, but from the standpoint of doing big things," he said.

But big business is one thing; Big Brother is another.

When the two get in bed together, it's not just that they do "big things" that's the problem.

They do big bad things.

(I'm glad so many of the "little people" seem to agree.)