Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Eminent mistake

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London deals a blow to private property rights and leaves working-class homeowners unprotected.

The little guy loses again. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court told Americans that the government may now seize their houses and turn them over to private developers as part of a plan to increase tax revenue or spur job creation. The decision - the work of the court's liberal wing - sharply curtails private property rights and renders virtually meaningless the Fifth Amendment's protection against takings.

Florida knows full well the damage that can be done to a community's character when rapacious developers work hand in glove with pliant public officials. This ruling opens the floodgates to such menacing partnerships, allowing government to use its power of eminent domain to seize prime locations (e.g. waterfront) that are being underutilized (e.g. modest single-family homes) and provide those parcels to developers to build more luxurious homes, or some other use that would increase tax receipts. Homeowners would receive compensation, but they would lose control over when and whether to sell their homes. Without question, the ruling will most adversely impact those of limited means and influence.

The case of Kelo vs. City of New London involved a group of homeowners in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, Conn. whose working-class homes and rental properties near the Thames River were to be destroyed in order to accommodate a city renovation plan. The homes were not considered blighted - many were well tended - but the city wanted their land to build office space and other amenities. The homeowners argued that since the Constitution allows the government to use its power of eminent domain only for a "public use," they shouldn't have to give up their homes when the purpose is economic development. "Public use," they argued, should mean what it says: schools, roads, parks and other places where the public is welcome.

But the high court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled against the homeowners. The majority, which included court's four liberal justices, broadened the definition of "public use" to include any case where a public benefit is conferred by the taking. In a spirited dissent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the ruling renders all private property "vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded."

The ruling's biggest losers will be people living in working class and poor neighborhoods, since the land in those areas is often not used to its best tax advantage. It is inevitable that large corporations and developers will increasingly try to use the government as their real estate agent. After all, who needs to bid for property on the open market, when the government will confiscate what you want, and at bargain "fair market" prices? The Kelo ruling will undoubtedly prove to be one of the court's worst mistakes in years.

[Last modified June 24, 2005, 00:46:17]