Private Property Rights Under Attack

In my last post, I referenced the Kelo vs. City of New London ruling of 2005 by the Supreme Court. This ruling--handed down by the Rehnquist court--continues to have far-reaching effects and represents a frontal assault on one of the core principles of our nation's founding--the principle of private property rights. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissenting opinion,

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Now private property rights are, once again, under assault because of this landmark decision five years ago. Today Fox News reported that the city of Auburn, New York will hold a hearing on May 5 to determine if eminent domain should be used to force the sale of a dog-grooming business in order to make way for the development of a new hotel. This is a classic example of just what the now-retired Justice O'Connor wrote about: the beneficiary of this fatally flawed ruling is a developer who has likely made substantial political donations to local and state officeholders, and who is promising higher tax revenues as a result of a new hotel being built in the city.  In the meantime, the owners of the dog grooming business are in shock. According to the Fox News report, the city of Auburn is offering the owners a "fair price" for their business. But "Ms. Smith-Ward blasts the offers as a "very insulting price for our property," and said she was stunned to learn that the city was considering seizing the business she and her husband Doug had sunk their life savings into only to hand their land over to someone else. She told Fox News she always thought eminent domain was "for power lines, roads, schools, hospitals and not for a private developer." "

There is another business--a pizza parlor--that has capitulated and agreed to sell to the city. Ironically, that business is owned by a former Communist from the Soviet Union who emigrated to the United States in the 1990's. She says she never knew there was such a law in the United States that could force a private property owner of a small business to sell out to a higher power and that it reminds her of what she grew up with in Communist Russia.

The truly frightening thing about this is that--if you own a home, a small business, a small farm--anything which is deemed subjectively by local officials as not serving the greater public good (whatever that means and however arbitrarily it's defined)--you can lose that property under the 2005 Kelo ruling. It is nothing short of an outrage. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves.