Protecting Private Property

Protecting Private Property
Rep. Boozman's Column for the Week of November 13, 2005
Fielding Questions from Third District Farmers

Washington, Nov 15 - Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court gave local governments the green light to cheat people out of their property. This may sound like an excessive or reactionary response to the Court's decision, but unfortunately it is true.

In a narrow 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the Court ruled the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment could apply in cases where local governments seize property for the "promotion of economic development." As a result of the Court's decision, cities and towns across the nation can now use eminent domain to take away the real property of any individual if they believe it will increase their tax base.

When you take a step back to look at what this really means, you find no wiggle-room in the Court's decision. It clearly means that homes, businesses and land are now fair game for a local government's taking.

The Court based their decision in Kelo on the Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment. While this clause has long been determined to grant the government the right to take or force the sale of private property for "public use," never before has the Court included "the promotion of economic development" in its lists of public uses. In previous decisions, the properties in question were deemed to be necessary for real public needs, like highways or tunnels. Now, in light of Kelo, a mall can be considered a "public need."

The Court decided that the potential of economic improvement outweighed an individual's right to his or her land. I wonder if the people who stand to lose the most from this decision agree with that logic. For instance, one couple that will lose their property as a result of the Kelo decision is an eighty-year old couple who have lived in the same home for more than fifty years. Apparently the Court felt that the City of New London can come up with "just compensation" for their fifty years of memories. I doubt that this couple would agree that whatever the city comes up with will be just.

This is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause was designed to protect private ownership, which was one of the rights patriots fought for and died to give us. It was never meant to be a guideline for how local governments could justify stealing private land.

Our Nation's Founders understood that private ownership of property is vital to both freedom and prosperity. By defining "public use" so expansively, the Court has essentially erased the protections for private property that the Founders fought so hard to give us.

In response to the Supreme Court's errant decision, I joined a majority of my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to pass legislation that penalizes local governments who use economic development as a reason to seize private property. The bill, the "Private Property Rights Protection Act," enhances the penalty for states and localities that abuse their eminent domain power by denying states or localities that commit such abuse all federal economic development funds for a period of two years.

House passage of the "Private Property Rights Protection Act" clears the way for the Senate to now address this important issue. Not only do they need to take up this bill, but they need to highlight this wrongheaded decision during their confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito. It is critical that the next justice would not misinterpret the Constitution in such an egregious manner. Congress and the Supreme Court are tasked with protecting the rights of Americans, not taking them away.

http://www.boozman.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=36937