Kelo case-getting back to basics

2005-02-22T07:42:00.000-08:00

It is imperative that the Court change the direction of the use of eminent domain. What is happening in Kelo and in multiple other cases across the country is the anthesis of Midkiff. In Midkiff, the Justices approved the use of eminent domain to place the land into the hands of many due to Hawaiii's housing crisis. Presumably the public benefitted from that. But from Midkiff has grown Kelo and other cases where government takes from the little person without resources to give to large businesses who could pay fair maket value or place their facilities elsewhere. If any purported economic benefit is to be received, it is a trickle down theory, especially with deals such as $1 a year lease. If the government can take private property for any use, then what is the meaning of the limitation of public use? Passing the property to private entities through redevelopment agencies does not mean that private entities do not contol the land. So shall we be intellectually honest and agree that all land in this country does apparently belong to the "king" and we lease it until the "king" decides that it has a better use for it? They don't call it eminent domain for nothing. The Founders must be turning over in their graves! What they anticipated as a public use was roads and schools and things like the railway. Everyone benefitted from that. They did not anticipate that Pfizer and Costco would be the receipient of public largess and the destruction of private property.
The brief does give a way of measuring the validity of the use. I do not find that the petitioners are anti-government but that they are for private property rights. They try to point out the obvious- that private businesses are the ones who benefit from these types of cases.
What is amazing to me is that the same corporations that decry government "interference" in their business because of taxation and regulations, have no problem using those laws for their own benefit. These corporations want a lassiez faire relationship with government until they blackmail some desperate city and then try to get everything they can out of those taxpayers. What I would like to see is what their position would be if Costco wanted to condemn Pfizer. It is really a matter of who has the political clout, under the standard outlined by the Conneticut court and not one of which the public sees any actual benefit.
The Michigan court is on the right track by overruling Poletown. Hathcock is a step in the right direction. But it does not go far enough. The states have zoning powers and can use that to remove blight. They can enforce their public health rules. If too few people own land, that is sad but it is not really the government's place to take it away and give it to others.
This Court should have the fortitude to stand up to these local politicians and say: Enough already. There is NO public use for things that are not to be used by everyone. To the businesses they should say, negotiate a buyout of the properties and it people do not want to sell their homes at any price, learn to live with it. Grow up! You are NOT more important than your neighbor because you have more money, can buy up these small town politicians and can dangle your wares in front of several of these small towns. Pick a town and make your deals, if you can't too bad. As Trump says, its not personal- it's just business. in fact, I think TRump once had to build around a small business that would not sell. If he can do it, so can the rest of these businesses.

Constitutional Chatter

Kelo case-getting back to basics