Supreme Court: Local government can seize "home-

sweet-home" in the name of taxation, revenue

By U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (GA-01)

Pack up your family china with care, take apart your daughter’s playpen, and do not forget the doormat off the front porch on your way out-Acme Development is moving in. Seriously. Thanks to a decision last week by the United States Supreme Court regarding eminent domain laws, private development corporations could now seize your personal property if a court determines that a developer could offer a "better" source of revenue, i.e. taxes, for the local government.

The Fifth Amendment’s "Takings Clause," which had always been interpreted by previous Courts to protect property rights for more than two centuries, has been dangerously redefined this past week by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Amendment states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." The clause has historically been reserved for federal roadway projects.

However, last week in Kelo v. City of New London the Court redefined what is considered "public use," threatening our culture of ownership.

The Kelo case involved the city of New London , Connecticut which, desperate to energize its struggling economy, rallied around a pharmaceutical company that moved to the city, bringing with it new, higher paying jobs.

New London officials sprang into action and planned the city’s economic revitalization focused around the company. The city officials urged the New London Development Corporation, a private company, to develop the surrounding area with hotels, business centers and other retail spaces. This was the golden egg they had been waiting for.

But in order to develop the area, the city of New London would have to tear down the residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area, consisting primarly of elderly, poor and minority families who would not get much money for their property and who could not afford a new home. Understandably, nine owners resisted the mandate and sued the development corporation. 

The case exhausted its way through the state and federal court system, ending up on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled last week in a 5-4 decision that the land could be forcibly taken from the residents even though it would be controlled by a private company, defining "public use" as "use which may benefit the public through economic growth."

To simplify: so long "home-sweet-home," hello taxes.

What the U.S. Supreme Court and the city of New London should realize is that these houses were not built for government use. They are homes, the prizes of years of hard work, responsibilty and dedication. They are sanctuaries filled with memories-our memories, which can never be replaced or relived. In short, property is central to the American Dream.

One of our nation’s greatest patriots and most brilliant minds, John Adams, once said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." I could not agree more. As Americans, we trust that the Bill of Rights protects our civil liberties and that the leaders of our country will make decisions that uphold the sanctity of our rights.

In a dissenting opinion, retiring Justice Sandra Day 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."

She argues that this decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively [deletes] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."  She went on to warn that the result of this decision would leave the poor, the elderly and minorities most vulnerable to losing property to the government.

Georgia-born Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, put it best when he commented, "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution."

Justice Thomas is right. The Kelo ruling is another case fueled by judicial activism and is a clear example of the court side-stepping the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, which only results in the further encroachment of the long, dark shadow of government in to the lives of its citizens.

But perhaps ironically, it is government that is coming to the defense of property owners in response to this ruling. In fact, federal officials and others quickly passed resolutions and issued statements calling the Kelo decision a "travesty." In Congress, legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to limit federal funding for cities and municipalities that use eminent domain to seize property for economic development. I look forward to working with my colleagues-on both sides of the aisle-to pass this legislation expeditiously.

Due to the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the President is required by the Constitution to nominate her replacement. For our nation’s sake, I’m hopeful that the confirmation process moves quickly so that Congress can concentrate on the work we have to do like strengthening Social Security, reforming immigration laws and finishing job-creation bills like the highway and energy bills.

But clearly, the Supreme Court’s decisions are affecting all of us. After all, it is not just our homes at stake; it is ultimately the American Dream.