Give Up Your Property -- And Don't Complain
Following Ricochet tradition, let me recommend Bill McGurn's excellent column in which he discusses the "litigious legacy of Kelo."
Kelo is the Supreme Court's 2005 decision that allows government to use eminent domain to seize your property and give it to a private developer. In practice it gives politicians the power to bulldoze neighborhoods for the sake of vanity projects. That's what happened in Freeport, Texas, where the city fathers tried to destroy a shrimping business to make way for a marina. And when a book exposed the collusion between the city and developer H. Walker Royall, Royall sued everyone in sight for "defamation" -- including Ricochet's own Richard Epstein who merely "blurbed" the book.
The expanded eminent domain power plus the use of courts to intimidate the opposition is a potent combination. Let's hope Royall's suit goes down in flames. In the meantime, Bill: if Royall sues you, give me a shout. I might know some lawyers.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Give Up Your Property -- And Don't Complain
Thanks, Adam. It's a good story. I actually spoke to Mr. Royall, who believes that he is unfairly being attacked for eminent domain proceedings that the city launched -- not him. My point is that this kind of poisonous atmosphere -- with lots of litigation -- is what the Supreme Court gave us with Kelo. Read Justice Kennedy's concurrence, where he says that he can imagine abuse in these kind of cases, but that the presumption should not be against the government.
Seems to me the whole presumption of our Declaration and Constitution is a presumption against giving government lots of control -- especially when it comes to private property.
Jun '10
Re: Give Up Your Property -- And Don't Complain
My parents lost a house to eminent domain, so that the State of Minnesota could build a State-owned parking ramp. What's different in that case is, the people advocating building the ramp had absolutely no financial stake in it. They just thought it was the logical thing to do. And American homeowners can accept that situation. What they can't accept is, being in a government-sponsored future-revenue auction over property that they OWN. "The other guy can pay us more property taxes, so, sorry, you have to leave."
Aug '10
Re: Give Up Your Property -- And Don't Complain
Add to that the usual tyrannical incompetence of government: After the Kelo decision, Pfizer Drug pulled out of the project. So the city of New London destroyed the community and got nothing for their efforts and massive waste of taxpayer money.
Re: Give Up Your Property -- And Don't Complain
Etoile, I think that's exactly the right distinction. The Constitution allows government to seize property "for public use," that is, to create state-owned assets that the private sector generally won't build themselves -- roads, forts, etc. Eminent domain is a targeted solution to overcome the "collective action" problem (Prof. Epstein is the expert on this). But in Kelo the court decided that "public use" really means "public purpose," which as you point out, is a thinly veiled way of saying "maximize tax revenue."
Edited on Sep 28, 2010 at 9:34amMay '10
Re: Give Up Your Property -- And Don't Complain
I think that States should continue to pass laws protecting their citizens. I am surprised Texas of all places did not do so.
I am fast growing to think that no one in office can be trusted. One term of office at any level seems to poison the mind of the officer holder. Power corrupts? I know everyone says, "Yeah, but not my guy". Well, maybe it is "my guy" too. Maybe it would be me. I am just disgusted with the so called "ruling class" from the POTUS right down to the School Board. If I could push a big reset button and toss them all out for random people, I'd be for that.