Public Property
|
||
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. 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.
Justice O'Connor’s Dissent to Kelo v. City of New London, decided 23 June 2005 The 2005 Supreme Court decision concerning taking property by eminent domain really bothered me when it happened. For once, I sided with the conservative side of the Court, which was, in this case, the dissenting opinion. I understand the idea of eminent domain seizures: my grandfather lost most of his farm to Interstate 295 when the six-lane highway was built around Providence, R.I.; however, I appreciate the need to put that highway in, and I used to travel it frequently. I also agree that governments sometimes need to override the interests of some of their citizens in order to benefit the vast majority of the population. However, in this case, the local government required homeowners to vacate their properties so that a private company, Pfizer, could build a new facility there. The owners sued, lost, and the Supreme Court made it law that this could now be done. The dissenters on the Court wondered if “economic development” by a private company really falls under the Fifth Amendment idea of taking private property for public use. One can only hope that future property seizures like this will have been thoughtfully considered by non-interested parties, but, of course, everyone can imagine some nightmare scenario where you have to move out of your house because it is about to become a strip-mall that will be partly owned by the cousin of a city councilman. Okay, it’s unlikely, but it now has a legal precedent.
comments powered by Disqus |
||
SeeDarkly All Rights Reserved additional coding provided by Dormouse Games |