THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country.

Background. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it. The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use.

The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use. Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use. This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed. This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation.

Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed. You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians.

Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision. In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics: There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend.

First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda. Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home. That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage. Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe. Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property. Belinda says no. She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased. So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol to talk to some politicians. He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him. Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to play Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.

Another example. This time we'll use me. About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains. It's a lot in a mountain resort community. Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so. At present it is not my intention to build a home. I bought the lot as an investment. Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low. Along comes a developer. He wants to build a home on my lot. I tell him the lot is not for sale. He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain. He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land. If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land. The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the land and turn it over. Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed.

Now take the situation in New London. This is the case the court was considering. The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents. The homes are old, but very well kept. One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home. Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center. This is America. This shouldn't happen in America. That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a new development would pay more in property taxes.

There are also small businesses located on this tract of land. They're history. The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property.

No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property. The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court. That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers.

Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point? If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hoes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price. I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not? Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't' accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and start the eminent domain process. This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value. The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate.

Another element of the New London case. These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront. Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property. This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company. Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures. This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project.

There's another element I want to add to this rant. I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the war against individualism. Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is. How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality" without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about?

The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals. Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around. When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights. Among those rights would be the right to property. Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights. They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights." Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights. People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged.

Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling? Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights.

The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights. Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.

A parcel of land worth 500K, with a potential to developers of 50 million, needs to be negotiated from that point. Not the 500K.

Exactly. If a local government wants to seize property to build an office park, the current owners of the property need to secure formal bids on their land from developers of luxury residential towers (or any other high-end land use) to serve as the basis of any negotiation for the value of the land.

If New London says my property is worth $150,000 under their "redevelopment scheme" and Big Expensive Sh!t, Inc. says they're willing to pay me $800,000 for it, then New London ought to pay me the $800,000.

You live in Washington so according to this article "use of eminent domain for private development [in Washington] is all but prohibited by law." You might want to check your local law and if necessary push for further protections against this sort of thing in your state.

This last travesty has turned me away from Bush utterly. He didn't do it, but he could have lobbied for a better outcome.

A democrat would have done less damage.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much lobbying power any president has these days - at least where the judiciary's actions are concerned. We know the overall trend is to issue rulings based on foreign law, so this is just more incrementalism. At the moment, it seems like a damned big increment, but have a look here: UN Agenda 21

Check out more of the Clinton Legacy, four of five paragraphs from the top (indented). Then think about the unfettered immigration from the south, and the new interstate highway corridors being developed.

I feel like a Roman, watching the barbarians coming over the seventh hill.

"Because we are a nation of cowards."

I don't believe that for a minute. What we are is not organized.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Recall how, during the initial organization of labor in the US, the tactics of the management forced labor into the camp of La Cosa Nostra simply so they could compete on the same playing field.

Now envision 1000's of little zoning commissions behaving like Child-Protective-Services-on-Steriods.

The possibility of this turning ugly is very real.

How do you like your frog? Boiled I hope, because it's done.....

Not all is lost. We can oust politicians who exercise e.d., we can boycott developers who use e.d. for their personal gain. We can elect congressmen who will amend the Constitution to RE-ADMIT the Bill of Rights. We can demand impeachment of black-robed mullahs who don't adhere to their sworn duties. And there is a lot more.

I understand one of the couples slated to lose their home in Conn. are in their '80's. My inlaws are in their 80's and have lived in the same house for 60 years. All they want is to live out their lives there. I can only imagine the devastation to my wife's family if this were happening to them.

The judges that made the majority decision of this ruling should be removed from the bench.

1. for willfully depriving and conspiring to deprive "the people" of property rights under the color of law.

2. For breaking their oath of office to "perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Call your congresscritters. This decision is completely inexcusable.

I wouldn't want that amendment. Sometimes "takings" are necessary. For example sometimes roads need to be built or widened and almost every time that happens the government is going to have to take some property from people. The Constitution says they have to provide just compensation when they do that. That seems reasonable to me provided that's what is happening. Taking people's property so a developer can build a resort does not.

With the legal options to resist the corrupt actions of local officials no longer on the table that leaves us the Second Amendment.

I will only hope that the GOP will act to get an Amendment passed to protect individual rights. I doubt that they will, but I can hope.

Otherwise our only options to protect our homes from eminent domain abuse is to lock and load or leave. No one's home or property will be secure anymore.

I thought that's what the 5th amendment did?

If these judges can ignore the constitution at will then no amendment is going to make a difference. They must be removed from the bench. Not just for this decision, although that's part of it, but as a stern rebuke for any other judge that thinks that they can rewrite the Constitution at will.

It is important to note that three of the five who voted in the majority on this decision were nominated by Republican presidents. It's also important to note that all four of those who voted against it were nominated by Republicans. Since only two sitting Justices were nominated by Democrats I guess you could twist things and say that all Supreme Court decisions are "Republican decisions" because there will always have to be more Justices appointed by Republicans in the majority than those nominated by Democrats.

We can oust politicians who exercise e.d., we can boycott developers who use e.d. for their personal gain. We can elect congressmen who will amend the Constitution to RE-ADMIT the Bill of Rights. We can demand impeachment of black-robed mullahs who don't adhere to their sworn duties. And there is a lot more.

You can do all of those things, but be prepared to be relatively lonely. This isn't on any radar screen. Most of the country is reading the sports pages. Those who know about it will forget it in a few days.

The repeal of the first and forth amendments hardly caused a ripple, even on this site. Many here actually cheered.

I'm convinced that much of the ado on this site today is caused by the unpopularity of the court, not the actual decision. If Bush somehow did this, they would be attacking me like crazy for excoriating him for it.

The frog is cooked. And the people are watching the modern day version of bread and circuses.

In the minority, Republicans at least pay lip service to rights. In the majority, they will do anything to retain power. It's pathetic.

I now believe the Republican Party best serves us.

In the minority, Republicans at least pay lip service to rights. In the majority, they will do anything to retain power. It's pathetic.

I now believe the Republican Party best serves us (oops) as a minority party.

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.