THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Nealz Nuze ^ | June 24, 2005 | Neal Boortz

[beaureguard]

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.

I'm not through ranting. Read on.

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.

[Alberta's Child]

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision was only part of the problem, and in fact the decision has effectively obscured the issue that brought the case before the court in the first place. The laws in the state of Connecticut that permit this kind of outrageous seizure of land by the government are the real problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision doesn't apply to states where this abuse of eminent domain is prohibited by law.

[kjenerette]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter(1) or to abolish(2) it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- excerpt from The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Note1: The 1st Amendment provides the means to ALTER the Government
Note2: The 2nd Amendment provides the means to ABOLISH the Government �

[coloradan]

You mean, Mrs. "We're going to take things away from you for the public good"?

[clamper1797]

It bears repeating ...

I don't care if I get banned from this site or not at this point, this needs saying. It's high time we as a people stood up to this tyranny going on in Washington DC. If we don't do it now and get it under control and put this Government back in it's box, violently if necessary, then we will lose every ounce of freedom we ever had.

[The Great RJ]

My liberal wife was also incensed by this decision, but she blamed the conservatives on the court for once again "selling out to big business". I delicately reminded her that the most conservative members of the court voted in the minority. Perhaps liberals might now see why we need a conservative SCOTUS.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Interesting. Thank you for your reply.

[NCC-1701]

"...I'd like to see the homes of the justices be bulldozed, but we all know that ain't going to happen...."

Why stop there. The land that the Supreme Court building sits on could fetch a pretty penny if bigger money-maker could set up shop there. BTW, does the Supreme Court actually produce revenue from its operation like, say, Federal Express? If not, crank up the dozers, lower their blades, and go to work.

[Conservatrix]

Exactly.
Communist Manifesto Chapter 1!!!!!

[yoe]

Is there a list (I probably over looked it) of the Justices who voted on this? If the Justices broke Constitutional law by scraping the Fifth Amendment, are they still the last arbiter? Or can the citizens demand they be over ruled?

If we at Free Republic can stay focused on this issue; get a petition started with the help of Jim Robinson and keep it in place, we might at least be able to start a ground swell of opposition and get some legal help.

[jaydubya2]

Lets build a rendering plant on the private properties of Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens!

[musanon]

I simply want to know what the heck they plan to do to protect my rights.

"We, the people, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln

---

Strangely enough, it may take another Lincoln like President to resolve this mess by defying the USSC.

The President could issue a 'finding' that public takings for private gain are against basic Constitutional principles that protect individual human rights.

He could then authorize the Justice Dept make available public defenders to citizens facing such infringements by state or local authorities misusing their power.

This protection would allow local juries to defend the property rights of their peers, just as the Constitution intended.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Another stupid, anti-American, Judiciary legislated law from the Supreme Court(aka decision) that will stand as the law of the land, until or if we can confirm enough gutsy and non-activist judges to reverse this asinine ruling. It's either that or a Constitutional amendment........dream on.

[Leatherneck_MT]

They can not only be overruled by the Congress, but they can be impeached.

They NEED to be impeached. I'll see if I can find a list of the judges and how they voted.

[kjenerette]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article I. - The Legislative Branch - Section 9(16) - Limits on Congress
Constitution of the Confederate States of America - 11March1861

[glorgau]

many of us will have to emigrate and find a new America. Comments?

The battle should be fought here.

[Protagoras]

It will be judicial tyranny that brings this country down. Every day brings another nail in the coffin for our Constitution.

Not really. Three constitutional amendments have been repealed since Bush took over. Not to say that Bush himself is the only guilty party.

The executive branch pushed for the end of the forth amendment, and got it. The legislative branch pushed for the repeal of the first amendment, and got it. Now the judiciary has repealed the fifth. It looks pretty evenly spread to me.

[jpsb]

"Because we are a nation of cowards"

No, because we have no leaders, the soccers moms keep electing cute, idiots. But out of this mess leaders, real leaders will emerge. And then we will kick butt.

[Lazamataz]

This is the most anti-individual-liberty court in America's history.

Between upholding the CLEARLY unconstitutional CFR, invoking the commerce clause in laughably-overreaching ways, and now letting government seize land to benefit political insiders....

This ain't your daddy's USA.

[LetsRok]

Let's take all the homes in the Hamptons from the mega-wealthy and convert them to condos. We nee more tax payers up there you know. We can do the same in Malibu.

[gregwest]

For what it's worth, the Mormons in the 1830s and 1840s were repeatedly driven off their lands by governments and their militias in the states of Missouri and Illinois. In 1833, Joseph Smith was given a revelation by God regarding a Christians' obligations to obey the laws of the land. Here is a statement from that revelation:

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (Source: Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-10)

In 1835, Mormon founder Joseph Smith published a declaration of belief regarding governments and laws excerpted below:

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

"We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." (Source: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134)

I thought those quotations were particularly relevant to this topic. The statement that "no government can exist in peace" unless rights to freedom of conscience and control of individual property bodes ill for the Republic. Inasmuch as the government twists the Constitution to advance socialism, the blessings of peace will ultimately be withdrawn from our nation.