Archive
Eminent Domain and Voting
In the recent Supreme Court ruling KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL, individual property rights have been severely curtailed.
Justice O'Conner Writes:
"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"
The idea that local government is allowed to take the private property of person A and give it to person B or developer/corporation B is contrary to our very liberty. When we buy our home we believe we have certain inalienable rights. One of these rights surely must be the decision to keep it or sell it as the owner wishes. Alexander Hamilton said that security of property is one of the great objects of government. This has been dealt a death blow in the name of Progress. Justice O’Conner also states there are two conditions on the exercise of eminent domain. These are “the taking must be for public use” and “just compensation”. She further adds:
Together they ensure stable property ownership by providing safeguards against excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government’s eminent domain power particularly against those owners who, for whatever reasons, maybe unable to protect themselves in the political process against the majority’s will.
I do not deny the fact that in certain extreme situations the government may need to take property. This bar however is to be set extremely high. The bar should not be the simple act of enriching one person, developer, or corporation.
Justice O’Conner also makes the follow important point:
"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. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
This perverse result is the enemy of the democratic process. The rich and powerful should not have more power in the political arena. Each citizen has one vote and should have equal influence. The large corporation or developer never has their property taken from them and given to the small homesteader. There is no equality or justice in this process.
The only benefit I see coming from this tragic decision is that perhaps more citizens will vote. The vote is important because local governments must still make the final decision to take property from A to give to B. Ask those who run for local office what they would do. It is in the city councils, county boards and school boards that the decisions that most affect our lives are made. Yet these offices are the most neglected in our electoral process. Many go unopposed and unchallenged. It is detrimental to our democratic process to have elected officials who are never challenged or have to answer the hard questions.
Citizens need to go to their city council, county board and school board meetings. You need to be aware of the decisions that are being made in your name. Make your voices heard and participate in the democratic process we have as our birth right. We are truly blessed to live in this country but we also have a great responsibility to ensure that we preserve these liberties to the generations yet to come.Eminent Domain and Voting In the recent Supreme Court ruling KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL, individual property rights have been severely curtailed.
