Scary business

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal today about the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo et al v. City of New London. At issue in this case, was whether or not a municipality could seize property from private citizens in order to build a privately owned and operated office complex. Governments have authority under "eminent domain" laws to seize land, in return for what they call "just compensation", for public use like roads and schools.

In the past few years, more and more politicians have been twisting this concept to make "public use" include anything that will generate more tax revenue than what is currently on the land. Now, the Supreme Court has given carte blanche to that practice. Say some MEGARetailer or big time development company likes the land your house is on, but you don't feel like uprooting your family to move from the house your father built just because someone offered you money. Does that MEGARetailer or development company accept your answer? Why should they? Now, they go to the City Council or whatever government is responsible for your little piece of America, and they make some donations to campaign funds, offer a few vacations, maybe just take a good old boy to a ballgame and buy the beer. Next thing you know, the City Council orders you to sell your land at "market price" to the city or county. Guess who determines "market price". Yep. Once they force you out, they often just give the land to this MEGARetailer or development company in return for the supposed future tax revenues generated by whatever development they're dropping on your former little piece of America.

There was a case in Georgia not too long ago in which a couple had already signed a contract to sell their land to someone else at a price (let's say 2 million) when the local municipality came along and decided they wanted it for a park. This municipality decided the "market price" of the property was some far lesser value (let's say 750 thousand). Because of a massive publicity campaign which highlighted this blatant thievery, the municipality eventually dropped their pursuit of the property.

How can a private citizen compete with these big developers in terms of influence on the politicians who make these decisions? Justice O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "The beneficiaries [of this ruling] are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." The competition is not in public hearings. It's in the back room dealings, bribes and campaign contributions that politicians (good and bad) accept all the time. The private citizen cannot withstand such an assault. I suppose we have the right to pursue happiness as long as our happiness does not live where their MEGAStore is going.

Property rights are one of the central pillars of our freedom, and this ruling cuts us off at the knees. While people talk all the time about Patriot Act this and Patriot Act that, these large corporations and development companies are walking out the back door with our homes. We all better pay attention to what is going on in our communities.
The article