The 3 R's of Tyranny

In its last session of the year, the U.S. Supreme Court made its worst decision (of many) in the last fifty years. The following article from Pittsburg's Tribune-Review covers the case well.

By Dimitri Vassilaros
Sunday, July 3, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that government can take your property by eminent domain and give it to anyone who promises to put it to more productive use. The District of Columbia should consider condemning the Supreme Court Building so the land could be developed for a tax-generating, job-producing business such as an adult book store, Wal-Mart or pig farm.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the court ruled that a modest Connecticut neighborhood could be confiscated by giving the property owners money -- whether they wanted to sell or not -- so a nice new development can rise up like a phoenix from the rubble of the lives destroyed by the bulldozers in the name of renaissance, revitalization or urban renewal, the three R's of tyranny.

The Framers of the Constitution stipulated in the Fifth Amendment that " ... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." At one point in American history, "public" had meant public, like roads, bridges, schools and parks.

But this court ruled that any private development -- such as mansions, shopping malls and coke ovens -- could be considered "public" use if the money boys have enough compliant politicians in their hip pockets.

And because of this ruling, surely they will soon.

If this is what liberals mean by a living, breathing document, then buy the fluffiest pillows at Bed, Bath & Beyond to smother this rewrite before it smothers you.

Thanks to the five justices, any pathetic little weasels in government could conspire with anyone else to take your property for the greater good, even if the proposed project is as flawed as Allegheny Center, the former downtown Pittsburgh Lazarus or any of the zany, madcap schemes proposed by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development or the Riverlife Task Force.

That slurping sound you hear is Mr. Murphy trying not to drool too obviously about the redevelopment possibilities. Even in the last few months of his failed stewardship, Murphy essentially could do anything he wanted with any private property if he could sell it as an improvement of its current use.

Scott Bullock is senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian, public-interest law firm. Bullock, who attended Hempfield Area High School, Grove City College and the University of Pittsburgh, represented the New London property owners. And every other property owner in this republic.

Arguing his first case before the high court was as exhilarating as it was disappointing. "It was the worst property rights decision in the last 50 years," Bullock said. "Under this decision, they do not even have to try to show the neighborhood has a problem."
Over the decades the court had allowed the government to take private property when a neighborhood supposedly was blighted or, in the case of Hawaii, when the government determined there were too few property owners owning too much land.
Now private property officially is an abstract. And before long, an obscure answer in Trivial Pursuit.

Monday is Independence Day. The Declaration of Independence states that all men have certain unalienable rights such as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And with this Supreme Court ruling, you also have the right to pursue your neighbor's property.

And he, yours.