February 27, 2005

I have often said that I cannot bring myself to join a certain third party movement because of their anything-goes attitude on the social issues of the day. Then along comes a U.S. Supreme Court case like Kelo vs. New London, and I once again find myself daydreaming about becoming a Libertarian.

This case, if decidedly wrongly, will destroy personal property rights in America, and it seems that Republicans and Democrats alike are looking the other way. In fact, in state and local governments across the country, elected officials from both major parties are driving a movement that would have made the Founders’ blood boil.

Kelo vs. New London involves a group of middle-class Connecticut homeowners who are suing their local city government for trying to condemn their homes and seize their private property to make way for the development of upscale homes and an office park.

How can this happen in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave? It’s called “eminent domain” and it has been used thousands of times in this country in the last 25 years to justify the seizure of personal property for “public use.”

Customarily, eminent domain has meant condemning a “blighted” piece of property and compensating the landowner at fair market value in order to make way for a roadway, a utility, a school, a park, etc., that will serve the public good and make the area attractive for development.

But in recent years, greedy local officials, with their insatiable appetites for spending our hard-earned tax revenue, have become increasingly creative in their interpretation of “public use.” In California, church property was condemned to make way for a Costco store. In Ohio, shopping malls replaced local residences. And in Mississippi, family-owned land was seized for a Nissan plant. Local officials have used the flimsiest of pretexts for these land grabs – even to build casinos where private owners once occupied the land – all in the name of more property taxes.

In the Connecticut case, the city is trying to justify the seizure of private homes – some of which have been in families for more than a century – because the new complex will “contribute to urban renewal” while raising the tax revenues the city receives from the property. City officials simply handed their authority over to a private board known as the New London Development Corporation, thereby allowing this private development entity to take the entire neighborhood for private development and set the price for compensation.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against the homeowners, who then pressed the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court heard the case on February 22, and judging from some of the questions and comments the justices were uttering, it doesn’t look good. Attorneys for the city were asked whether a Motel 6 should be ousted in favor of a Ritz Carlton in order to provide more tax revenue for the local governing entity. The answer was a resounding “yes.” Even Justice Antonin Scalia, whom one would assume to be sympathetic to private property rights, questioned whether the court would have to get involved in every case of eminent domain from now on.

Eminent domain probably was a bad idea to begin with, but the Supreme Court has been allowing its use since the early 1950s. Now we have a half-century of precedents with which to contend, and we all know how judges hate to reverse themselves. If this travesty of justice is allowed to stand, no one’s property rights will be safe.

So, when you see the mayor of your town driving by your church, synagogue, place of business or even your home, remember the good people of New London, Connecticut, who used to enjoy their homes by the water.

Doug Patton