Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

It’s Your Property – Right?

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London has upset a lot of people who are shocked to learn that governments have the right to force one private property owner to sell his property in order to benefit another private property owner.  In the Kelo case, the city of New London, Connecticut is forcing people to sell their homes for a private development that is expected to bring in more tax revenue.  Unfortunately, Connecticut is not the only place where governments run roughshod over property owners.  Similar situations frequently arise all over the country, including Kentucky.

Most people would agree that it is reasonable to use eminent domain or condemnation so a property owner cannot threaten to block an infrastructure project, such as building a road, telephone line, or sewer line that has to take a relatively straight route or a drainage project that has to be built in a specific location due to the slope of the land.  However, serious questions need to be asked when the property involved is not necessary to a project, even if the project is for government use.  For example, is it reasonable for the government to force one person to sell his home in order to build public housing for someone else?  Should people be forced to sell their land in order to build government offices or a government school? Private schools and offices are able to manage just fine buying their property on a voluntary basis.  Why can’t governments also buy land on a voluntary basis for those types of projects, making an offer and respecting the right of land owners to refuse to sell, just like anyone else?    

It is very disturbing to hear government officials say that it is necessary to take property for economic development, when one of government’s main responsibilities is to secure private property.  Don’t they realize that respect for private property is a fundamental requirement for long term economic development?  While it may appear in the short term to be smart to take land by force in order to bring in a factory or a shopping mall, the long term effect of failing to respect private property is very harmful to the economy.   How many people who do not have strong political clout are going to risk investing in buildings and equipment when those investments are at risk of being taken through eminent domain?  And even those who have political clout know they can lose that clout in the next election, thus making long term investments risky for everyone.  We need those investments in order to create jobs and increase productivity of our workers.  Government officials should just take a look at the level of economic development in communist countries and banana republics if they want to see what happens when private property rights are not respected.       

It also should be noted that the main way in which we can show respect for individual people is by respecting their rights to their property.  Owning property is how we take care of our families and secure our futures.  When government fails to respect people’s rights to control their own property, it is also failing to respect people, and you can bet that the people who will be mistreated are those who have little political power, which is usually the middle class and lower income people.  You can bet that when government runs roughshod over people’s property, it will be for the benefit of those who have more wealth and power and who can bestow benefits on the government officials.

Even the ability to threaten to use eminent domain often has disastrous consequences.  For example, when a government declares an area to be “blighted” and eligible to be taken by eminent domain, owners in the area are told that they should not make any improvements or repairs to their property, because they will not be compensated for them when eminent domain is used to take the property.  As a result, the area deteriorates, and many properties that had been well-maintained become “blighted”, thereby making the “blighted” designation a self-fulfilling prophesy.  This may help governments obtain properties at bargain prices, but it certainly is not good public policy.

Many people are up in arms over the Kelo decision and are demanding that their state legislatures pass laws to make property rights more secure.  Let’s hope the state legislators will be more swayed by the people’s concerns to be secure in their property than by the desire of bureaucrats to make a fast buck or to reward their friends at the expense of property owners.         

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN