Posted on 10/04/2004 6:06:08 AM PDT by Calpernia
IS YOUR HOME REALLY YOUR CASTLE?
In Connecticut, the government wants to take away some guy’s house.
Actually, it’s 15 houses and 15 families.
In New London.
There’s a tract of more than 100 houses, a neighborhood more than a hundred years old. Well kept, kind of middle-class. One lady lives in the same house where she was born, in 1918. Her son lives next door.
But a developer wants to bulldoze them all.
He wants to put in a big hotel and a conference center, some offices and about 80 luxury homes.
Most of the people have sold out. All, in fact, but 15.
Which is where the Supreme Court comes in.
The Supreme Court of the United States will decide the fate of those 15 families and their homes. And in so doing, will potentially impact the lives of all of us, and redefine the concept of property rights in America.
Here’s the story.
New London needs tax money. Like everywhere, budgets are tight. Costs go up and revenues stay level and that puts the squeeze on everybody.
And then comes the developer. And it is not lost on the city fathers that his project would generate substantially more taxes than the homes it would replace. So they resorted to eminent domain. The concept from the Fifth Amendment that one’s property can be taken by the government for the public use if there is “just compensation.”
Usually, this is used to clear the way for roads or dams or schools or fire stations. For public things that benefit the public. And sometimes for urban renewal, to remove blighted properties.
But New London wanted it to be a little bit more.
It reasoned that it could condemn the properties that wouldn’t sell, under eminent domain, and transfer them to the developer. The rationale was that such a move served the public good by generating more tax revenue. New London believed that it’s interest in that tax revenue trumped the homeowners’ interest in keeping their houses.
And the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed.
Which is scary.
Here’s hoping the United States Supreme Court takes a different position.
Because if the genie is let out of the bottle, if this precedent is set and accepted, the entire concept of the private ownership of property is endangered. If this is supported by the Supreme Court, ownership of property would be at the pleasure of the government.
Here’s how I mean.
If the government can take your property because some other private use would net it more taxes from that property, everybody’s at risk.
Here’s an example.
Say you’re a farmer, and you have a field you cultivate. That land, in agricultural use, is typically taxed at a lower rate than land in residential, industrial or commercial use. Additionally, if there were stores on that land, instead of rows of corn, those stores would be collecting sales tax.
From the government’s standpoint, using that land for agriculture is the lowest possible return. If a residential developer wanted to buy the land, and you wouldn’t sell, wouldn’t the government be able to take your land and sell it to him, claiming that by so doing it was benefiting the public good?
What if a mega store, which was also apt to bring in a lot of sales tax, wanted to put a store where your house is now? Couldn’t it get the government to throw you out, claiming correctly that its store was far more valuable than your home?
And how about this example. What if someone wanted to put a strip mall where your church is now. Your church is tax exempt, and pays no taxes whatsoever, so why shouldn’t its land be taken and given to some use that will generate money for the government.
This is a Pandora’s box which should not be opened. It would ultimately give government the deciding hand in who would own what land and what that land would be used for.
And those two things would substantially extinguish freedom.
Because if you’re not free to own land, you’re not free. That’s what the Founding Fathers thought, and that’s what American experience shows.
This case is about a governmental attack on freedom, and the Supreme Court is the last defense.
Those people in Connecticut should be able to stay in their homes. They should be safe from governmental assault. Their rights should be respected.
Because if theirs aren’t, ours won’t be either.
Thanks for the email forward NW_AZ. Developers are ruining all of our communities.
the basic premise is that whomever pays the highest taxes on a piece of property is doing the greater public good. If that is the only criteria for defining "public good" used in the taking of land, then every homeowner in the US is threatened.
I cannot beleive that the founders had this in mind when they wrote the constitution.
of course this is the very same town that refused to hire a guy as a cop because he was too smart.
Neal Boortz will be all over this one. Rightfully so, of course.
Who's the Delevoper ? Alenzo Hawk of Disney "The Love Bug"
Then the government grants the new owners a wavier.
This is already a reality. You don't own your home, the government does. How do I know this? Well, try not paying your property taxes. Result: the government takes your home.
If you live in a place where you have to pay rent, guess what? You don't own it. Property taxes are rent to the government.
You don't own your car, either. If you don't rent it from the government every year (buy new plates), they will take it from you.
Everything we own belongs to us only at the pleasure of the State. Even if the Supreme Court rules the right way on this, it's only a temporary slowing of the encroachment of the State. This battle will have to be fought over and over and over, as the State tries different ways to seize our property.
We have to win every time, the State need only win once and we become nothing but slaves to it.
That's pretty standard, actually.
"Just compensation" means nothing if the buyer sets the price.
In Chatham Mass., about 10 years ago, the town Fathers decided to take a 9 hole golf course by "Emminent Domain" rather than allow the owners to develop the property, " it was in the Peoples interest".
The town had the property appraised and paid the owners $4,000.000 dollars as "JUST" compensation and took over the property.
The owners sued and were awarded and additional $4,000,000 for the property and $4,000,000 in damages for a grand total of $12,000,000.
As far as the Peoples Interest goes, the taxpayers are still paying off the debt, for this debacle done in the name of "emminent Domain".
reckon sherlock holmes wouldn't stand a chance...
The Institute for Justice has done great work on this issue and won some big victories to stop these programs in Ohio and Michigan. Their website has a lot of good information for anyone interested.
While I agree that this case is outrageous, to say "developers are ruining all of our communities" is way off base and foolish. In this case, it is again the evil government screwing the bejeezes out of landowners.
Your statement reminds me of the years I spent living in Vermont. Many people thought that noone should be allowed to build, because it would destroy the natural beauty there. Of course, these were people whose houses had already been built, and whose houses could not have been built under the new regulations they were advocating.
I would bet that well over half of the houses freepers live in were built by "developers." These are business people out serving a public good by providing a product to willing buyers and providing good paying jobs to willing workers and subcontractors.
The construction industry employs only 7% of US workers, but their pay makes up 20% of salaries earned (Construction work pays well when you make the right choices!)
Look to the greedy government for people to blame in most cases, not the developers.
I just got my property tax bill. If I don't pay it, I get evicted. That's not exactly "ownership" now, is it?
>>>The Institute for Justice has done great work on this issue and won some big victories to stop these programs in Ohio and Michigan
http://www.ij.org
Um...hello? This battle was lost long ago. We "own" real property only at the pleasure of the government. If we are lucky, they compensate us when they take it away.
>>>Your statement reminds me of the years I spent living in Vermont. Many people thought that noone should be allowed to build, because it would destroy the natural beauty there.
Let's not harp on symantics. But if you are suggesting there is no current issue with developers, state level government pay offs, and condeming land to force the owners off, then you leave in a fantasy world.
Boy, I hope so. Otherwise that moat I just put in is gonna look real silly.
The conservationalist already has his house in the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.