• read more:
• « older
• newer »
•  · 
• home
• archives
• about
• contact

Supreme Court upholds property seizure in New London

Wow - is this a horrible ruling by the US Supreme Court. Today the Court ruled in Kelo v. New London, 04-108 that local governments may seize citizen's property - even against their will - for private economic development.

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Eminent Domain is a compact between the State and The People where the State will only confiscate land in order to provide needed services to the greater populace. Confiscating property to build a shitty mini-mall is not what Eminent Domain is for - this is a horrible ruling, and I will need to read the decision to better understand how and why the Justices ruled. I can stand with my more conservative friends in saying that this appears to be an abuse of power by the government, and a very bad ruling by the Supreme Court.

While I believe that many ills of society derive from property ownership, I firmly believe that our country is based around property ownership and this ruling strikes quite a blow to this right. The right to property is at the cornerstone of our democracy, and I believe that without it, America cold not have formed or operated for the last 200+ years. But, let's be frank, we are talking about local governments here, not the Federal Government.

But let's step back.

The State exists to provide a "bubble of liberty;" rulings of this nature hem in this bubble immensely. If we want the State - in whatever form - to have more control on property then we should have an open and frank discussion of this topic. However, I predict we won't be able to - many of my conservative friends are screaming about our "decay into Communism" and "central planning." I don't quite agree that we are reaching some central planning black hole, unless you believe that zoning rules are evil (instead of merely needing a big fix). This ruling appears to pertain only to local governments - the bedrock of our nation.

I think an open debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the local government regulating land use would be warranted and useful. Crying about the loss of state's rights is quite a misnomer - this case is about local governments regulating property, which I think should occur within reason. But taking land from one citizen to enrich another citizen (which is the basis of this case) is not the type of land-use policy I would advocate for any State apparatus. If the US Congress would be given this right, I would stand right next to my conservative friends in denouncing it. But (again) we are talking about local government - the most fluid of all government structures - which can be effectively fought.

That being said, let me reiterate (again) that Eminent Domain is a compact which must not be used to enrich one citizen's liberty at the cost of another. This is something I think we can all agree with; land-use policy is a tricky subject. There is definitely an element of "greater good" which must be balanced against private liberty of property ownership. It seems that the greater good was not satisfied in this instance to the detriment of personal liberty.

This article has been edited for spelling

Comments

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)