The takings clause
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 23 February 2005 | 11 responses
Professor Bainbridge has a good roundup of Kelo vs. City of New London, a case involving the takings clause which seems to have significant ramifications on private property rights.
After news of Napoleon’s victory in the Battle of Austerlitz was conveyed to British Prime Minister William Pitt’s, Pitt pointed to a map of Europe and said: “Roll up the map; it will not be wanted these ten years.” If the Supreme Court sides with New London, we might just as well roll up the Bill of Rights, for we won’t need it any longer.
If property can be taken for the purpose of increasing the tax base, then I fear that property rights mean little. And also that the wealthy will end up grabbing all the choice real estate, particularly that with scenic views, located on lakes, rivers and oceans, etc.
Besides, plenty of people of modest wealth eventually sell their property due to increased market value and/or to escape rising property taxes.
If increasing the tax base is a “public use” then what wouldn’t be such a use?
Personally, I just couldn’t do without Dahlia Lithwick’s Supreme Court dispatches. Doesn’t look good for freinds of liberty.
OK, OK, the Supreme Court may end up leaving a right you thought was virtually absolute entirely up to the discretion of a government official. Is that really so terrifying?
Before you answer that, take a criminal process class. The supreme court has been handing constitutional rights over to the discretion of the government (or making said rights disappear altogether) for 25 years now in that area — they just happen to be the rights of people who are usually poor and don’t own much real property. So, apparently, nobody in the group that’s now terrified by the spectre of rights being left up to the discretion of officials, noticed.
Do I think it’s sad when somebody loses land they love? Yeah … but I’m more just turned off by the fresh hysteria of those who worship at the altar of private property, that don’t appear to have noticed parallel rights-limitations going on for years.
Love the “roll up the bill of rights” comment, though. We could have used some of that drama back when the court was ACTUALLY rolling up the bill of rights in the 80s and early 90s … it’s too late now.
Anyone who loves liberty and believes in property rights should be appalled at the ramifications if this case were to go the “tax” way.
And to add insult to injury, there are currently no actual plans for the land that they are trying to take from Ms. Kelo.
One of the other parties to this case has already had land seized by the city from the family for a government project that was never built. They moved to Fort Trumbull after the previous eviction.
NLDC has had a few other housing projects which were supposed to revitalize things but didn’t pan out, so between that and the above there are some in the area that really don’t believe that anything is going to happen here, and if it does it’s not going to have the hoped for (by the NL city government) results.
And it’s never to late to unroll the Bill of Rights: however the longer we wait the harder and bloodier it will be.
Do you want the red pill or the blue pill?
Is there really any absolute dividing line between a taking and an exercise over the police power of the gov’t?
The nature of property rights are always in a flux, albeit not a complete one due to the freedom of $peech.
Property has no meaning beyond those interests which gov’t chooses to protect. That’s why we saw so much money being spent on the last election to decide what party would control our gov’t.
dlw
Indiana is thinking about passing a law that would mandate private appraisals of land sought under eminent domain proceedings and then compel the government to pay 150% of that value. Its bad enough that currently “the government” is allowed to steal your property but it is even worse when they have rigged the “just compensation” process. Indianapolis is home to many such skullduggeries.
Are you talking about this?
Yes, and thank you Karl! In addition to the experiences of Indiana lawmakers to the takings issue there is another theft to guard against. That would be the overweening “regulation” of your property so as to render it of much less value or, even worthless. Those familiar with Coke, Blackstone, Care could imagine them spinning in their graves at our current practice of government theft. Maybe those authors are unknown in the lesser law schools?
Once again, the theme
song
for the Patriot Act.
y of New London) before the Supreme Court now. Acc
One of our readers alerted us to this interesting property-rights case (Kelo v. City of New London) before the Supreme Court now. According to Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe: