Take my Love, Take my Land

The AP reports that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that cities may use their eminent domain powers to seize private homes to generate tax revenue. The ruling comes after the City of New London, CT tried to buy residents’ homes in an effort to revitalize an economically depressed area. The City plans to buy the land to build “a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.”

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Therefore, the government has the power to buy your land to build a highway. However, the Supreme Court has decided that the government may take private property for private use. According to the Court, condemning property to increase tax revenue counts as public use. But, this ruling is a gross interpretation of “public use” and is an awful violation of the right to property. As Justice O’Connor says in her dissent, this ruling means that,

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded – i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process.

Again, Justice O’Connor says,

[The Court] holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public – such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words “for public use” do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

I won’t go so far as to say that this is a first step to communism (as it is a vast expansion of government’s power to seize private property), but I will say it is very, very scary.

The Court’s decision, and Justice O’Connor’s dissent may be read here.

–J.E. Heath
Enthralled by my wisdom? Get more at per-fidem.org.
Comments? Email us.

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath