THE NATION'S capital is still reeling from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement announcement. As advocates from both ends of the political spectrum rushed to the steps of the highest court in the land in premature anticipation of her replacement moments after the news broke, one monumental Court decision handed down on June 23 seemed to be all but forgotten. But for this case, Kelo v. City of New London, to get lost in the shuffle would be an unfortunate tragedy.
This landmark decision blazes new trails for the Fifth Amendment -- trails that are better left untouched. In a 5-4 decision, the most liberal members of the Court and Justice Kennedy ruled that the City of New London, Conn., could seize the homes owned by seven families (15 homes in total) in order to allow businesses to build a hotel, offices and a Pfizer complex.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does permit the government to take private property for public use, which typically included highway and bridge construction projects, as long as "just compensation" is provided to the property owners, but this has now been expanded to include private use. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, justified his reasoning with this explanation: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."
I fail to see how this trumps an individual's right to own private property, one of the cornerstones of a free society. As John Locke noted, "[N]o political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property." This decision opens up a Pandora's box and sets a dangerous precedent, since it creates an ambiguous benchmark for what constitutes "economic development."
Aside from endorsing the seizure of land from citizens, the Court has essentially affirmed society's materialistic, bottom-line mentality by placing value on property solely based on economic standards. This ruling ignores historical value, sentimental value, educational value and philanthropic value, and could, if states so choose, tamper with the fabric of a wholesome community.
Think back to your childhood and the places that come to mind when you recall fond memories: parks, playgrounds, libraries, community centers, field trips to museums and planetariums, little league baseball games, religious classes at a local church or synagogue, and Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts meetings at a VFW or American Legion hall.
Most of these experiences, which help shape who you are today, took place at facilities that contribute little monetary worth to the surrounding areas. Some even take away more money than they supply, since they rely on tax dollars and donations for their existence. Others are non-profits which are exempt from certain taxes, and thus don't provide as much money to the government as for-profit businesses do.
These buildings may not represent organizations that generate revenue for the town, but their intrinsic value is immeasurable, and the benefit to a community's quality of life is priceless.
In an e-mail response, University Law Professor Robert Turner, commented, "The problem is that throughout the country powerful men and women can easily gain influence with local government officials, and the risk that this opinion will legalize such influence to be used to deprive the weak of their property is a real one."
Thankfully, at least one branch of government has stepped in to correct this over-zealous misuse of power. State legislators have started to take action. Eight states already have laws against the use of eminent domain for economic development. Futher, although this ruling gives states the right to apply eminent domain, some are opting against it. In Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue, along with state assemblymen and senators, are planning on rewriting the law or even amending the state constitution to ensure the power of eminent domain isn't exercised to the extent that it was in New London. For the sake of a fundamental constitutional right and for the sake of ensuring an area's treasured heritage and culture, hopefully it will not lose steam.
The ruling has even led one daring individual to take this as far as -- well, one justice's front doorstep. Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, which is devoted to combating government abuses, wants to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare, N.H., the address of a colonial farmhouse owned by none other than Justice David Souter, who sided with the majority in this case. The hotel would be aptly named the "Lost Liberty Hotel." Clements promises this is not a "prank," and that the hotel would generate more tax revenue and benefit the area economically. While this action by Clements is meant to give Souter a taste of his own medicine, there's nothing in the ruling that can prevent this if the town approves it; in fact, the ruling paves the way for many more such occurrences. One must truly consider the legal ramifications of this invasive decision.
A few days ago we celebrated our Independence Day, but this year, the luminance of the fireworks seemed a bit dull as the erosion of our freedoms became a reality.
Whitney Blake is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
