Posted on 02/18/2005 5:05:56 PM PST by BlackjackPershing
On February 22nd, the future of property rights in America will be at stake as the Supreme Court begins oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. New London. The central question at issue is: should the government be able to use its power of eminent domain to seize property from one private party and transfer it to another?
The seven property owners on the side of Kelo are the last remaining of more than 70 families whose homes and businesses were targeted for demolition several years ago by the city of New London, Connecticut, to make room for a 90-acre private development. The story of one of the owners, Susette Kelo, is representative. Kelo, a nurse, bought and painstakingly restored a home that initially was so run-down that she needed to cut her way to the front door with a hatchet. After she had achieved her dream home, she was informed in November 2000 by the local government that her home was condemned, and ordered to vacate within 90 days. She and the other owners remain in their homes only by the grace of a court order, which prevents eviction and demolition until their appeals are exhausted.
What justifies this treatment of Kelo and the other owners, who simply want to be free to live on their own property? The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in "the public interest"--because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government. This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property. The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99¢ Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"
To such government officials, the fact that an individual earns a piece of property and wants to use and enjoy it, is of no importance--all that matters is "the public." But as philosopher Ayn Rand observed, "there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals . . . .the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." In the context of the Kelo case, the idea that "the public interest" trumps private property rights simply means that the desires of some individuals for property they did not earn and cannot get from others voluntarily trump the rights of those who did earn it and do not want to sell it. Why are their rights trumped? Because some gang with political pull doesn't happen to like how these individuals are using their property.
This is unjust and un-American. America was founded on the principle of individual rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What do these rights mean if an individual is not free to remain in and enjoy the house he chooses to build his life around, simply because others are clamoring for a shopping mall? Just as it would be unjust for the government to shut down the printing presses of a newspaper because its reporting is unpopular, so it is unjust for the government to raze a house that an individual has earned, developed, and loves, no matter how many cry that the land should be put to other use.
If the Supreme Court rules against the property owners in Kelo, then no one's home or business is secure. As Dana Berliner, an attorney for the owners, explains: "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business then no property in America is safe. Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."
Matthew Dery, another property owner in Kelo warns that "People who've never experienced this sort of treatment at the hands of the government should realize that this could happen to them. You take for granted that, in America, you own your property until you choose to sell it, but that's not the way it is in New London or in Connecticut. If the City [is] allowed to get away with [it] . . . , [t]he knock at your door could be next."
bump
eminent domain is a power that has got to be reeled in.
I can. You can tell that to Yaron Brook, who just doesn't have time (too busy raising money).
I saw what eminent domain did in my city in the early sixties.. I HATE it.
Almost anytime a beaureaucrat thinks he knows a better use for YOUR land than you, you're about to have your freedom zapped. Private property rights are the foundation of our liberty.
This is not new. In the 70's & 80's, the city of Willoughby Ohio tried to pull eminent domain on an old lady that had a sheep farm. She left her doors open & the sheep would wander in & out of the house. Her farm was at a huge intersection. Somehow she won. The last I knew in '98 she was still there. A hospital, a shopping center, several restaurants & medical office buildings & a high rise apartment complex surrounded her. Sad, funny & true.
The government takes property by force from people every day of the year and then gives to people who have done nothing to earn it. And their is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows them, or even hints at the power to do so.
So, here is my take: if the SC rules that the power of eminent domain does NOT extend to seizing property and transferring to another for the "greater good of the public", then there is a good chance that the same argument could be made for eliminating all forms of wealth transferrance.
OTOH, if the rule against the property owners, then you can just forget that there is any limitations on the government whatsoever.
OK Mr. Lawyer sir, let's take your comparison one step farther, I would wager that Bill Gates pays more in taxes than you, so should you be run over by a bulldozer because of that?
If anyone is looking for a few good books on the subject, I just started reading 'This Land Is Our Land' by Joseph Farah and Richard Pombo. Into the 2nd chapter and it promises to be informing and insightful.
I can sympathize with property owners in cases like this, but wasn't this process of seizing property from one "owner" and giving to another who would "put it to more productive use" exactly what transpired when the U.S. government was chasing Indians all over the Plains?
The power of eminent domain is specifically laid forth in the Fifth Amendment, which ensures that "private property" may not be taken "for public use without just compensation". This, again, obviously implies that private property may be taken for public use with just compensation.
The Constitutional issue here is whether attempting to improve the economy of a political jurisdiction qualifies as a "public use", and what standard should be applied to that qualification.
bttt
THere aren't any limitations on government. There haven't been for many years. Many consider Waco to be an abject lesson of same. Anyone who believes the government has any real restraints on its power is living in a fantasy world.
That's the part which is just plain wrong. Local government has NO BUSINESS condemning private property in order to inflate it's property tax revenue. Period.
Eminent Domain should only be exercised when it will demonstrably improve the general safety of ALL taxpayers.
Terrible abuse of eminent domain near the University of Cincinnati in the last few weeks. The gov't took a few private producing businesses across the street in a known productive area and gave them to a different group of developers who could produce more dollars.
I suspect they beat the doors down to get their ruling before this Supreme Court case got decided.
P.J. O'Rourke said that the Constitution is not an impediment to our form of government.
He also said that giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a 15 year old boy.
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.