Why you really no longer own your home
David asked if I knew anything of the recent 5th amendment Supreme Court decision (Kelo). I happen to have studied the 5th amendment fairly heavily in law school and have followed this case for a while.
The Institute for Justice (although didn’t give me a job after I interviewed with them) is a great organization and did a fantastic job arguing this case and almost (should have) worn.
There is a lot of 5th amendment history, but suffice it to say that the government is granted the power of eminent domain, which is the right to take your property. The founding fathers had two protections built in. 1) The taking entity must pay just compensation (which you would think is FMV but not always) & 2) it must be for a public use. The recent decision dealt with the latter, what is “public use.â€
You would think that public use is pretty self explanatory: a park, road, fire station etc. Well you’d be wrong. Under the Court’s newest ruling, the city county etc. can take your land and turn it over to a developer to build something. (In the Kelo case they don’t know what they are going to build). Where is the public use? It seems that because what ever is built there will be worth more than these peoples houses it will bring in more property tax thus helping the public. This means that if a well connected developer wants your property to build a mall/office/restaurant, the city can use its eminent domain powers and give it to the developer. Previous to this case the rule was that if the property was going to be turned over to a private developer then certain rules needed to be met: eliminate blight, reduce unemployment etc. the most famous of this is the Poletown case. Oddly enough the Michigan Supreme Court ruled a year ago that this type of taking is illegal and overturned its previous decision in Poletown.
In addition to being able to take your home, this really decreases the value of investment property, as the developer can get your property at its current value, not what it will be worth after the value increases (ie a road being built).
Anyway there is a lot of information out there, written much better than I can do. For general information there is www.ij.org and www.castlecoalition.org
If you want serious legal discussion check out www.scotusblog.com
As Justice Thomas said in his dissent “Something has gone seriously awry with this CourtÂ’’s interpretation of the Constitution.”
June 29th, 2005
This is just what I love most. Instant justice
Oh, so very, very sweet…
July 26th, 2005
A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.
So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.
Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.
I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.