Government grabbing homes
- who'll be next?
By Henry Lamb
Be it ever so humble,
there's no place like home - unless the government wants it.
Until 1954, a man's home was his castle, where no one could enter
without an invitation or a warrant. Then, under the watchful eye of
the U.S. Congress, the city of Washington, D.C., decided to exercise
eminent domain to take land from poor blacks to redevelop a blighted
area. The action was upheld by the Supreme Court [Berman vs. Parker
(1954)].
The city of Detroit expanded on the idea in the 1980s, and
exercised the power of eminent domain to take
the homes and businesses of 4,200 people so General Motors could
build a new automobile plant in an area known as "Poletown." The
action was justified on the basis of increasing tax revenue and
stimulating the local economy. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the
decision.
Soon, municipalities across the country began using the new-found
power of eminent domain to take land from one private owner, and sell
it to another private owner, to increase tax revenue and stimulate the
local economy.
In July, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the
Poletown decision, which effectively eliminates the practice in
Michigan.
The city of New London, Connecticut, used eminent domain in 2000 to
take 90 acres of private riverfront property in an effort increase tax
revenue, and stimulate the local economy. Most of the owners
acquiesced, but ten owners said no, and their case has now been
accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Kelo
vs. City of New London).
Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer, argues passionately in a
Washington Times column that the power of eminent domain
applies to the middle class and wealthy in new London, Connecticut, just as
it applies to the poor blacks in Washington, D.C.
But, he misses the point.
Government is authorized to take private property by the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for "public use" - not for public
benefit. What is legitimate "public use?" Pretty good guidelines are
offered in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "...forts,
magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings...."
If government remains empowered to take private property for
whatever it perceives to be a public benefit, the concept of private
property will vanish; the United States will be no different than a
communist nation where government decides how all property must be
used.
Take, for example, the Everglades Restoration Project in South
Florida. Government has taken thousands of acres of private property,
uprooting hundreds of private owners, to develop a project, not for
government use, but which government says will result in a "public
benefit." The so-called benefit being the restoration of the Everglades
to its "natural" condition.
Like the people in New London, most of the affected people gave up
when the government declared its intention. Some who fought spent
their life savings in legal fees, only to see their homes bulldozed
into oblivion. There is one man, however, who still believes that his
humble home is his castle. He has issued no invitation to the
government, and he believes the eminent domain proceeding to take his
land goes way beyond the power granted to government by the
Constitution.
The government wants Jesse
Hardy's 160 acres, not for a "...needful building," but to restore
a "sheet flow" of water across the Everglades. Ironically, according
to engineering studies, the sheet flow will not touch Jesse's land
because of its elevation. But, they still want his land because,
according to Nancy Peyton of the Florida Wildlife Federation,
which has promoted the project from the beginning:
"It is remote from any public facilities. It is remote from
schools, and from even a supermarket. It is not a good location for
people to be, and the best and highest use [of Jesse's land] is to
restore it."
Neither Nancy Peyton, nor the governments of Florida or the United
States, should have the power to take private property from an
individual because they decide that "...it is not a good location for
people to be," or because they want to use the property for some
purpose that suits their vision.
Nancy Peyton, and the governments of Florida and the United States,
should heed the words of founder John Adams, who correctly declared
that:
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not
as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property
must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
Henry Lamb is the Executive Vice President of the
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and Chairman of
Sovereignty International.
|
