The government takes what it wants
November 11, 2009 6:40 am
In 2005 in the case of Kelo v New London, the Supreme Court ruled that government can use eminent domain to seize private property, not just for the use of the state, but to hand it over to other private entities. Governments may do this, the court ruled, for reasons no more compelling than that the new owners will pay more in taxes. After winning the case, the city of New London seized the property of Susette Kelo and others, demolished their homes and turned the land over to developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.’s nearby corporate facility. Pfizer, however, bugged out and the project never materialized.
Today the land land that the City of New London took from Susette Kelo and her neighbors for “economic development” is still vacant. None of the 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues promised have become reality. The government of New London took the property of citizens against their will and the result is vacant, unkempt land that benefits no one.
Occasionally the state shows its true face and makes the real situation clear. Kelo demonstrated that private property is an illusion and that your home and land can be taken from you by the state for just about any reason it can articulate. It can ever take your property for the purpose of selling it to a higher bidder.
There is good news, however, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Kelo’s silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.
If there is a lesson from Connecticut’s misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.
notamobster :
Date: November 11, 2009
I’m so happy to hear this has resulted in tougher iminent domain restrictions. I watched and wrote about this to my email minions back when the case was decided by the SCOTUS. I also wrote about the attempt to seize Justice Souter’s private residence under the justification!
http://lonestartimes.com/2005/06/28/eminent-domain-comes-back-bites-souter/
Van-a-gram :
Date: November 11, 2009
RD—this topic always make me shake my head, but for a different reason than you may think. Whenever the government takes property in the form of real estate, people get all freaky. But the reality is that government takes property from private citizens all the time; the public has just become numb to it.
The 5th Amendment expressly gives the government the power to take personal property with “just compensation” but only for “public use” – the crux of the argument is in these undefined terms. One could argue that eminent domain is no different than any other government redistribution program, and therefore is not unique when it engages in this kind of activity.
The government has a long and very legal track record of taking private property ( gold / money) from one individual and giving to another; it’s called the IRS. Is physical property called ‘land’ really any different than the physical property called gold? The government legally deprives private individuals of their property every day—why is this any different?
The ever-growing Libertarian in me would argue that Americans gave up our property rights when we allowed property to be taxed in the first place. In doing so, we really abdicated all of our property rights in one fell swoop. Now nobody actually “owns” their property—the government does. If you want to test this theory, do the following: Stop paying your property taxes.
See how long it takes for the government to seize “your” property. You see, you don’t really own it, you just pay rent to the government and in exchange they let you use it.
Or try these:
• Go chop down the electric and phone lines in the government dictated easement across “your” property. You’ll irritate your neighbors. And go to jail. Last time I checked, the phone, cable and electric companies were private entities who have been given unrestricted access to “your” property.
• Tear up a search warrant. See if that stops the government for entering “your” property to search and seize even more of “your” property.
• Go build a house on a piece of “your” farmland. And watch the local zoning board show up and tell you can’t build on “your” property.
• Dig a well on “your” property. And watch the DNR show and tell you to fill it in because the government (the landlord) didn’t give you permission.
Ok, Ok, you get the point. Given these things, is eminent domain really that shocking? Even if its redistributed to another private party?
Do we ask, “Hey, that gold you took from me…did that go to buy a ‘common public good’ like a lighthouse or something, or did you give it to Shashawna Shaniqua, the thrice pregnant single mother on welfare so she could buy cigarettes and Colt 44?”.
Of course we don’t ask that. Maybe we should. So again, why should we consider our land any different than our gold?
Beanman :
Date: November 11, 2009
Well put Van-a-gram. This topic frustrates the hell out of me as well.
Currently the United States government has the power to condemn privately owned land as long as the land is used to better the public, which at times translates into building Wall-Marts, multimillion dollar apartment complexes, or better yet simply giving it a clever name such as “redevelopment site 17” and then letting the land rot for the years to come (I am sure that the picture above has a similar name). There are some restrictions to the condemnation process including the dysfunctional idea that the land should be “blighted” or “in danger of becoming blighted.” The governmental translation of the term “blighted” can be anything from a house that does not have three bedrooms to a house without a two car garage.
By giving our government the power of eminent domain we are assuming that our government will make more efficient decisions than the private sector would have made. We do this even though the government has time and time again shown its immense inability to operate efficiently. Moreover, by giving the government power of eminent domain we are removing the possibility of any legitimate negotiations because, in the end, the government can take control of the land either way.
The main problem I have with eminent domain is that ‘just compensation” is never just. See the government fails to realize that when someone buys a house it is an investment. Maybe the government cannot comprehend the economics behind this but when people buy houses they do so in hope of the price increasing. So when the government “justly compensates” someone by paying them the market value of their house, they are simply perpetuating their own ignorance in understanding what a house is worth…. too bad this doesn’t fail to surprise me….
Locke n Load :
Date: November 12, 2009
All good gripes…now my one last one, maybe more of a warning of things to come. I remember the 3 nasty words used to defend the Kelo decision were Compelling Public Interest, no?
Just imagine if/when that concept gets expanded into managing our healthcare access. BigMacs, Soda,Skydiving, whatever..if it could have an adverse effect on the bottom line of Obamacare you can bet your ass it will become a Compelling Public Interest to limit that item.
Van-a-gram :
Date: November 12, 2009
L&L — you are correct. Your crystal ball is accurate predicting that ‘compelling public interest’ is perhaps the most dangerous three words on the plant (other than ‘Def Con One’).
But again, I would argue that ‘compelling public interest’ is already used in such a widespread manner that Americans have sort of tuned it out. Think about it: How did we end up with any of the bloated social programs we have today? The legislature determined that there was a ‘compelling public interest’ for it, which can otherwise be defined as voters voting themselves more of someone else’s property.
Happening everyday, everywhere. As I posted earlier, I don’t understand why people get so freaky about land v. any other kind of property. Perhaps that its more ‘tangible’ somehow. People will pay tens of thousands of dollars in income tax, but if the government instead took their new Jeep, people would scream murder. Why? The Jeep is somehow more tangible than money. But there is absolutely no difference.
And as for healthcare, it will pass based on this exact premise.