In June the Supreme Court started the clock ticking on a potential political time bomb. In Kelo v. New London, the Court ruled five to four that local governments could use their power of eminent domain to take private property, including homes, to promote economic development. The decision broke no new legal ground, but it did stir up opposition across… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (11)Page 1 of 1 pages“Government creates property rights, which are always conditional and limited.”
I did not just read that.
I’m afraid you terribly misunderstand the source of rights. Rights do not flow from the government. Not in this country, anyway.
Rather, rights are inherent in man by virtue of his humanity. (Or, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “they are endowed by their Creator.")
If rights were granted by the government, we would be no better than serfs under a Dark Ages feudal lord, and would live similarly.
Posted by error on Oct 12, 2005 at 1:46 PM Error-
The U.S. constitution is a legal document that behaves the same way as any contract - it defines relationships based on sets of conditions and limitations. If the “founding fathers” truly envisioned a system of government based on an idea of absolute freedom, they wouldn’t have seen a need to codify a set of laws at all!
Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are about as far as the constitution goes in terms of admitting that all rights are confered upon us by God. Then it very quickly goes on to place restrictions on all facets of those rights.
Our system of law has become so perverse that in order for an act to be legal, our elected representatives must first pass a law to legitimize said act. Its this very mentality that has led the uber-patriot to state that “freedom ain’t free.” Personally I find this concept abhorent. The only thing preventing true freedom is Government!
Moberg was correct in stating property rights are meted by the government - as sad a fact as that may be to accept.
Posted by jon t on Oct 12, 2005 at 3:05 PM “The process of using eminent domain for economic development is in need of reform, such as more extensive and democratic planning (especially from the affected neighborhood), more rigorous demonstration of the public benefits that should be the plan’s primary objective (not simply increased tax revenue or the private benefit of a new owner), and both public regulation of the project and binding contracts for private performance. “
As a resident of Ardmore, I think this is an example of where the distrust comes from. The Township has hired a media relations firm, hosted a number of community meetings, brought in national experts on town planning. Despite the fact that the national experts at the urban land institute recommended that they not use eminent domain, despite opposition of the community, they still went ahead and voted to spend $5 million in tax dollars to help private developers.
The media relations firm can put nice brochures and the design firm has nice glossy photos all touting how residents will give up the automobile and stop shopping at malls if we just had newer, nicer buildings downtown. I don’t buy, and neither do most residents. The concept of a binding contract for developers doesn’t help the families and businesses that will be displaced by eminent domain. Knowing 3-5 years from now that opponents were right, and the town commissioners who approved spending tax dollars on the project will have long retired or been voted out, won’t bring back that which is lost.
Posted by MarthaT on Oct 12, 2005 at 3:26 PM Eminent Domain in its pure theory is a necessary evil, as I would be quite spent if, after living in a house for forty years and raising a few children, the government simply took it all away and put in a road. But the greater good is at stake here, and always at stake. The advancement of a single individual is not as great as that of many, such as our friendly Internet proves.
And Eminent Domain can help to greatly facilitate the progress of creating better-flowing forms of economics - which in its theoretical form should give rise to more advance, complex, and thus, simple communities.
The problem is, once again, education. There is a lack of individuals with the sophistication to understand the How and Why of intelligent economic development through such powerful tools as eminent domain.
And there are too many individuals who understand the short term benefits of how to take advantage of this powerful tool and are exploiting it to their favor and flavor. So Nader is correct, we must put more safeguards and control devices on this tool, until a better crop of educated individuals come around who have the discipline to handle the power.
Posted by mattdon on Oct 12, 2005 at 7:11 PM It seems unlikely that “we” are going to be able to put more safeguards and control devices on the tool of eminent domain, just as “we” are generally unable to put safeguards and control devices on government in general, when “we” are ordinary people and not prominent or powerful individuals or groups. In theory, at least in a democracy, an informed electorate could restrain the abuses of eminent domain, but an informed electorate would require an academic system and media which would do the informing, whereas in fact academia and the media are dominated by the same class of people who dominate the government and the corporations that are perpetrating the abuses of eminent domain that are supposed to be restricted. As a result they generally do a rather poor job of informing the people about such things, just as they did a sufficiently poor job of informing the people to let George Bush to perpetrate his criminal wars. This is nothing new—the article above mentions the “Negro removal” of the ‘50s. Just as the old saying goes, power corrupts. If some have the right to seize the property of others, they will exploit it for their own benefit and according to their own prejudices.
All that being the case, it seems to me that the libertarians are empirically correct. The Left, being the party of freedom and equality, should be on their side, not that of the ruling class.
Posted by anarcissie on Oct 13, 2005 at 11:35 AM I don’t which is more “disinformation”—calling the Republicans “libertarians” (the very meaning of which has been “anti-authoritarian” for at least a century and a half or so ... or claiming that the government grants rights under the Constitution (when the exact opposite is true: the Constitution BEGINS with the premise as outlined in the Declaration) that our rights pre-exist, and that government is constrained by the list of things it CAN do, rather than permitted anything not listed (read the danged Ninth and Tenth Amendments for clarity!). All in all, it makes me continue to wonder if anyone actually understands what “progressive” actually means ... and knows it is not a synonym for “Democrat” or even “non-Republican” ...
Posted by livingliberty on Oct 13, 2005 at 4:24 PM OOPS! Corrections (and slight expansion):
I don’t which is more “disinformational” — calling the Republicans “libertarians” (the very meaning of which has been “anti-authoritarian” for at least a century and a half or so) ... or claiming that the government grants rights under the Constitution (when the exact opposite is true: the Constitution BEGINS with the premise (outlined in the Declaration) that our rights pre-exist, and that government is constrained by the list of things it CAN do, rather than permitted anything not listed (read the danged Ninth and Tenth Amendments for clarity!)).
Meanwhile, the consistent reference to the “libertarian right”—as being virtually synonymous with slightly more consistent conservative GOPers—is patently offensive, especially to those who remember the term’s origins (and its use by the LEFT throughout the early and middle 20th Century - ever hear of the Wobblies?) and who (even through a long run within and around the party that took the name) have always considered ourselves more “left” than anything else, except in our belief that choice and voluntarism are the primary values of a free society, while confiscation of wealth and property is the province of tyrants!
All in all, it makes me continue to wonder if anyone actually understands what “progressive” actually means ... and knows it is not a synonym for “Democrat” or even “non-Republican” ...
Posted by livingliberty on Oct 13, 2005 at 4:40 PM _Libertarian_ has come to be a conventional term for people who would be better described as fundamentalist or conservative liberals, in that they believe in the old-time Lockean and Jeffersonian rights and in the minimization of government. However _liberal_ is now used to mean something very different and in many ways opposed to their views, so I think they should be allowed to use the word.
_Progressive_ used to mean “leftist but afraid to say it” but now it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything any more.
Posted by anarcissie on Oct 13, 2005 at 6:58 PM No real argument here; I agree that those are the meanings that have been imposed on those terms.
I’m trying to salvage both “libertarian” and “progressive” from that slag-heap, before they go the way of “liberal” ... “conservative” ... “left” ... “right” and even the original meanings of “republic” and “democracy” ;(
both terms have very specific meanings that should survive the attempt to trivialize them.
Posted by livingliberty on Oct 13, 2005 at 10:50 PM The “libertarian right” if you want to identify them that way, is essentially correct in this matter. A right to property it the guareentee of all other rights.
Posted by chopper on Oct 15, 2005 at 10:24 PM It could happen to you.
Fighting Goliath
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
August 20, 2007 MondayEvery once in a great while, government, as a land-grabbing Goliath, gets thumped by the most diminutive David, especially when the former fails to follow its own policies.
That may cost Philadelphia $497,230 in damages, plus the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
It began when Ed and Debbie Munoz, in pursuit of the American dream, put up their New Jersey home and borrowed $1 million to buy a grocery and garden center in Juniata Park. Afterward the couple learned—secondhand through customers—that their business was in the footprint of a planned housing development.For more than two years, the Munozes sought answers from the city but said they received none. In 2004, with declining sales—allegedly because of government’s imminent land grab—and Ed Munoz’s declining health, the couple declared bankruptcy. The city picked up the property at a sheriff’s sale.
The Munozes went to court.
City officials said it wasn’t clear through 2004 whether the Munozes’ lot would be needed. Yet an April 2003 letter from the developer asked the city’s Redevelopment Authority to acquire the property.Even the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reportedly warned city officials in 2005 that Philadelphia violated federal relocation law.
So, all’s well that ends well? Not quite. Goliath plans an appeal.
Here’s hoping these Davids, and all the other Davids facing similar battles for their rights, won’t give up the fight.
Posted by nelse054 on Sep 3, 2007 at 9:35 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Dixie Turning Blue
- Moving Obama Left
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis - Our Imperfect Unions
- Dismantling the Myth of McCain
How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham - Main Street Squeeze
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
