Paxety Pages

A Periodical - Internet Edition

 

Home
Daily News and Commentary
Mahone Speaks
Lehamic's World
Cuba Libre
Bluenotes and Three Heads
Feature Articles
Tales and Humor
Our Animal Companions
Music
9/11 Memorial
Guest Appearances

Site Meter

U.S. Supreme Court Emulates Chavez
Thursday, June 23, 2005   By: Juan Paxety

You home is now the taxing authorities castle

In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court says your local government can take your home away so that a developer can build a shopping mall or a condo complex. From The Washington Post:

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

At issue was the last phrase of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads ",,, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The homeowners had argued that the term "public use" means a usual government function such as a road, post office, hospital, etc. There is no constitutional provision for the government taking property for a private use.  The local governments argued that public purpose includes grabbing the higher taxes a big development would bring in."Higher and better use" in the words of taxing authorities. The Supreme Court agreed.

How is this different from what chavez is pulling in Venezuela? hugo is taking land from long-time owners and giving it to people who will put it to a "higher and better use."

A New York judge once said "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." Now that warning extends to your home.

Update - The Institute for Justice represented the homeowners before the Supreme Court and has a statement on its web page.

"The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice.  "With today's ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are.  This will not be the last word."

"One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O'Connor," Bullock said.  "Justice O'Connor wrote, '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.' "

I really don't know what to say.

Update - I can say this - Shannon Love at ChicagoBoyz wants a constitutional amendment to restore the meaning of eminent domain.

Screw flag burning. The Congress needs to offer an amendment to return eminent domain to its original meaning. Our system of land property is the foundation of our economic system. Without secure property rights the economy will collapse. I can say without any hyperbole that this one ruling has the potential to do more long-term damage than any other Supreme Court ruling of the last 100 years. It will destroy property rights, corrupt government and lead to the politicization of virtually every real-estate development.

I'm writing my state and federal representatives and I encourage you to do the same.

|   



(c)1968- today j.e. simmons or michael warren