Your home could be next
No one disputes that government must have the power of eminent domain. But it must be used judiciously, and our Constitution provides for just that. Our founding fathers even went so far as to require that the government taking the property provide "just compensation" to the landowner in such cases. However, events around the country and last week's U.S. Supreme Court case reaffirm what many Americans have feared for some time: that a nation founded on the principle of individual rights is slowly and grotesquely transforming into a nation where the rights of individuals are easily usurped by the power of government. And now the highest court in the land has sped up that erosion of individual rights by allowing this land grab. Taking land from private citizens for a "public use" has swiftly and deftly evolved into taking land from private citizens for a "public purpose." Perhaps that's logical to those who believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. But for the rest of us, the seizure of private property for a "public purpose" such as greater tax revenue for a city is indeed scary. Last week, the Supreme Court defended local governments' ability to condemn private homes and businesses to make way for their grandiose and private redevelopment plans. What this means to you and me is that our homes, our churches and our small businesses -- even those in good shape -- can be taken against our will and given to another private landowner if the new land use will generate more tax revenue for the local government. The case is Kelo vs. City of New London. In a familiar theme, New London, Conn., fell upon hard economic times. The city's private redevelopment authority lured the Pfizer Corp. to build a $270 million research facility. That caused the city to develop a grandiose redevelopment plan nearby that would "necessitate" the taking of several homes. The plan called for "a waterfront hotel and conference center surrounded by restaurants and stores, marinas for recreational and commercial use," and, ironically, 80 new residences in an urban neighborhood. While New London, Conn., deserves all of this newfound negative attention, it isn't a new trend in local government. In the early 1980s the General Motors Corp. persuaded Detroit to condemn a neighborhood and sell it cheap to GM to build an auto factory. Neighbors were horrified that, in the course of just a few weeks, their longtime urban neighborhood was pulverized. In 1999, Merriam, Kan., condemned a Toyota dealership to sell the land to a BMW dealer instead. Not to be outdone, Bremerton, Wash., condemned 22 homes to resell the land to private developers. Lest you think these are random occurrences, consider this sobering statistic: Nationwide, from 1998 until 2002, local units of government have used or threatened to use eminent domain to seize public property at least 10,000 times. Your home could be next. Property rights are fundamental to the liberty we enjoy in this great country. Our founding fathers understand that there could be no freedom, no genuine liberty in a country where government officials could arbitrarily seize your home or your business. "Despotic power of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government," Supreme Court Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case. He went on to say that the state must not invoke that power "except in urgent cases." Paterson couldn't imagine living in a country where the courts could justify "the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen . ... Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature ... can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?" Where, indeed? Six years ago, a funny Australian film called "The Castle" became a cult favorite in the United States. The film's "castle" is a ramshackle suburban rambler built on a toxic landfill so close to the airport that planes on final approach nearly scrape the shingles off the roof. While the house isn't much to look at (despite the owner's dubious home improvements), it is his home -- or, as he calls it, his "castle." When the cheerful homeowner, Darryl Kerrigan, finds out that the local airport has designs on taking his home, he fights it all the way to the Australian Supreme Court. In the movies, the Australian Supreme Court got it right -- Kerrigan won his battle to save his castle. Sadly for us in real life, our Supreme Court got it all wrong. -Annette Meeks is CEO of the Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank in Minneapolis. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted. |
Annette Meeks