Eminent Domain Case Upheld, Developers Rejoice
Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled against the homeowners in the closely watched case about the powers of local governments to exercise eminent domain. In their 5-to-4 decision, Kelo v. New London, the judges gave the green light to the city redevelopment authority to condemn the old waterfront neighborhood so a private developer can…
Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled against the homeowners in the closely watched case about the powers of local governments to exercise eminent domain. In their 5-to-4 decision, Kelo v. New London, the judges gave the green light to the city redevelopment authority to condemn the old waterfront neighborhood so a private developer can put office and apartment buildings in their place. While eminent domain never sits quite right with us, we can see some justification in the case of critical infrastructure like major roads, railroads, and even in truly blighted neighborhoods, though we realize that in itself can be a slippery slope. But what a scary precedent that a city can dispossess law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from their homes in order to make way for a fancier development! The amount of compensation the City of New London is offering homeowners is based upon appraisals from 5 years ago–so it’s a safe bet that the numbers are significantly below market value. In her dissent, Sandra Day O’Connor worried that the decision would mean that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence “so long as it might be upgraded.” Bet you won’t hear Bruce Ratner complaining about this decision.
Justices Uphold Taking Property for Development [NY Times]
Homeowners Frustrated at Court Ruling [NY Times]
OpEd: The Limits of Property Rights [NY Times]
(Eminent domain..just another way for the rich to still from the
poor!)
Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime,
suppress minorities and still remain democratic.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
The more corrupt the state, the numerous the laws.
Tacitus
This is America. You should all be ashamed to call your self apart
of the American government. I know I am ashamed of You!!!
Any law which violates the indefeasible rights of man is
essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all.
Maximilien Robespierre
Justice will only exist where those not effected by injustice are
filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended.
Plato
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot
of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny
ripple of hope…build(ing) a current that can sweep down the
mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
Robert F. Kennedy
A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In
order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many
compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes
indistinguishable from a streetwalker.
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts,
and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not
commit suicide.
John Adams
Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and
order.
John V. Lindsay
No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature
is in session.
Judge Gideon J. Tucker
People despise the lust for power that originates from a craving
for homage and for the attributes of power.
Konstantin Ushinsky
Governments need armies to protect them from their enslaved and
oppressed subjects.
Lev Tolstoy It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is
worse to be oppressed by a majority.
Lord Acton
It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with
the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the
majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed
by a majority of the people.
Giordano Bruno
Totalitarian political system based on absolute power.
Persecution Persistent ill treatment or harassment.
Communism An economic or political system based on the sharing of
all work and property by the whole community.
In law,( eminent domain ) is the power of the state to appropriate
private property for its own use without the owner’s consent.
Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into
complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand
that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure
freedom.
F.A. Hayek
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are
the rulers.
Aristotle
Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens.
Alastair Farrugia
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a
man’s character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It
indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice. H.L.
Mencken (1880-1956)
Tyrants have not yet discovered any chains that can fetter the
mind.
Colton
A fool is very dangerous when in power.
Denis Fonvizin
So easily do weak men put in high positions turn villains.
Dmitry Pisarev
General rebellions and revolts of a whole people never were
encouraged now or at any time. They are always provoked.
Edmuns Burke
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government.
Edward Abbey
He who allows oppression, shares the crime.
Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin
Who is John Galt?
What this shows is that there is no such thing as private property here or anywhere. The proof is that if you don’t pay your property taxes, the government takes your house. This doesn’t sound like ownership in the sense that most of us contemplate.
In one sense, though, this has to be true. There is no property without government, or more precisely, without the laws that protect property rights. The only reason you are able to say that you own something is because if someone tries to take it from you, we have laws that protect the rightful party. In the same way, when Bush says “It’s your money” he is wrong. Without the taxes you pay, you wouldn’t have that money in the first place, or if you did, you would have to spend almost all of it on guns and fortresses to protect it.
In the end, though, the thing that people forget is that government only rules through the continuing consent of the people. The Constitution allows the government to take private property for “public good.” The Supreme court, the body that the people have consented to as the interpreter of the constitution has rules that “public good” includes such things as taking property in order to give it to other private citizens. But the Constitution is not supreme. It is a law that can be overruled by the will of a supermajority. If enough people feel that the constutionally protected right of eminent domain is wrong, the people can revoke their consent. The problem is not with the government, but with a populace that feels that they are being governed from above, when really all government begins at the bottom.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Yes, it’s very interesting that the extreme left and extreme right are aligned on this one, and not so unusual, in my opinion. But I think that when this kind of alignment happens, people should stop and re-examine their beliefs to check for consistency.
After all, everyone is so full of righteous indignation that private property could be seized by the government, as if we all thought we lived in some kind of libertarian utopia. But the govt interferes with private property rights all the time, and both liberals and conservatives support such interference constantly, so long as it suits their purposes.
Conservatives are guilty more of pushing for a govt that interferes in our personal, private lives–in their world, big brother should make sure none of us smoke joints, have anal sex, have teen sex, listen to marilyn manson, play violent video games, or have fun, in general. Conservatives are also often guilty of supporting public financing of religion, pretty hypocritical for the “party of small government”.
Liberals, however, who are so outraged about eminent domain, seem to be forgetting that MONEY is private property. And liberals are all for a govt that takes money from some and gives to others. Not just taxation for public use, mind you, but taxation to support all kinds of special interest groups, from “local” farmers, to unions, to the sugar and textile industries. Even taxing the rich to pay for housing for the poor is, technically, another form of eminent domain, just in reverse. It also makes me laugh when people define tax breaks as subsidies; I am happy to pay taxes for public services, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the amount of my salary I’m allowed to keep is some kind of govt subsidy to me. Excuse me, but I thought that was my hard-earned money.
The cruel fact is that the govt takes our property all the time and gives it to others, tells us where we can live and how, and interferes constantly in our lives, and most of us encourage this. If you are going to object on libertarian grounds, that’s fine, but you should at least be consistent, which I suspect very few people are.
Good political cartoon on this subject for June 23, 2005 at:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/
Thanks Matt for posting the WSJ editorial!
Politics is all about strange bedfellows and suprises about with whom you’re sharing common cause. This “ooo ooo Lefties” thing is really tedious.
Private developers have been getting special treatment when it comes to eminent domain for some years now. I think it was meant to let the road go through or whatever instead of subdivision going up over existing housing/farm. That is, NOT public good, but big private interest vs little private interest. Or me vs Ratner. (splat!)
yes, anon123. The answer here is not a blanket federal rule that protects private property above everything else. Otherwise, Wal-Mart could move in, blight a downtown, and there would be nothing the town could do to get rid of it, even if 99% of the residents voted to kick out the Wal-Mart in a referendum. This ruling allows those voters to get rid of the Wal-Mart and put in a downtown that favors local businesspeople.
The answer to distateful cases like this is local politics, not broad rulemaking. Make the local lawmakers pay for allowing things like this, and they’ll be less tempted to take the corporate handout and lose their jobs. Or they’ll only accept the bids that make the best case for improving the lot of the voters, or they’ll start putting these things in referenda. And, thankfully, under Kelo, if Pfizer does nothing but pollute New London, hire a few locals to work in its mailroom, and import all of its chemical engineers from CalTech, then, in a few years, New London can buy back the building and convert it into a U.Conn. research hospital, or build a stadium for the New London Timberwolves.
In the meantime, do you really think a local government is going to act with impunity to screw the locals for long? There are such things as elections, people, and those local offices can matter more to your personal lives than the guys at the top of the ticket.
We entrust the gov’t to set tax rates, how is this any different?
If any local gov’t went against what most (registered voters/) people want, they would be voted out.
You always hear about these cases where there is one or two hold-outs trying to stop some big project which almost everyone else thinks makes sense.. that sounds like tyranny of the minority.
Left wing of S. Ct. — more willing to give government power
Right wing of S. Ct. — less willing to give government power
Left wing of NY — less willing to give government power
Right wing of NY — more willing to give government power