Who Really Owns Your Property?

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled local governments could seize private property "for private economic development". That is, take an individual's home or business if the local government deems there is the potential for improvement to the local community by replacing your property with one that would provide an increase to the revenue base.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this type of action, seizure of an individual's property, primarily restricted to eminent domain decisions which focused on the public use of the area? Now, it appears the focus is on the increase of revenue, not on the direct benefit to the community.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Never mind the price the affected individual will pay by losing a home, a business, a livelihood. Never mind the property may be the result of years of hard work, perhaps even land passed down from generation to generation.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

So, in effect, the high court has supported, although in a split decision, the right of a developer over the right of a tax-paying, land-owner legally in possession of the affected property.

Justice O'Connor sums it up nicely:

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

Once again, individual rights take a back seat to business interests and power brokers. Get used to it or do someting about it.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Go Bill!

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Freedom, Government, Life, News, Politics.