One year later, power to seize property ripe for abuse

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

Remember Susette Kelo? The New London, Conn., nurse lost a landmark legal fight to save her pink cottage from being seized by city officials, who wanted to hand it over to developers. Just over a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against her. It held 5-4 that local governments could condemn private property, not just for a public purpose such as a road or school, but also to give to developers if a locality's economic future is at issue.

As it turned out, that wasn't the end of the story. The house won't be bulldozed after all. Last month, officials agreed to move it to another location so that her land can round out a waterfront development site - a compromise Kelo suggested years ago to little avail.

Meanwhile, the ruling has ignited a nationwide fight between developers rushing to seize a fresh opportunity and an unlikely political coalition that sees the decision as an assault on America's "home-as-castle" mind-set.

Emboldened by the ruling, local governments have threatened or condemned 5,783 properties for private projects in the past year, according to the Institute for Justice, the libertarian law firm that defended Kelo. That's up from an annual average of 2,056 such threats and takings from 1998 to 2002, the Institute said.

Of 117 projects the Institute studied over the past year, most involved taking lower-income homes, apartments and mobile home parks to construct upscale condominiums or retail development, driving the working poor from their homes.

But the Kelo case also has inspired a political backlash unusual in the annals of Supreme Court rulings. It has united conservative defenders of property rights and liberals who say the seizures amount to corporate welfare at the expense of the powerless.

They've scored significant victories:

• Twenty-five states have enacted laws to curb eminent domain seizures - something the Supreme Court invited them to do in making its ruling.

• The U.S. House of Representatives voted 376-38 last year to bar federal economic development funds to state and local agencies that use eminent domain for private commercial development. A similar bill is stalled in the Senate.

• On June 23, one year after the Kelo decision, President Bush issued an executive order that federal agencies can seize private property only for public projects.

Those actions should help ensure that the growing movement to prevent unjustified seizures of private property will gain momentum. In the words of dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "the government now has the license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more" as long as there is some purported economic benefit. And that is wrong.

Supporters of seizures such as the one in New London argue that abuses are rare and that condemnation is needed to revitalize abandoned or blighted areas and encourage the growth of jobs. But the truth is that under the court's ruling almost no one's property is safe unless states impose limits.

Seizures of one person's property to benefit another should be rare and a last resort. The halfway happy ending to Susette Kelo's ordeal should encourage political leaders to do more to stop bulldozers from plowing through the American dream.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

We need to protect property rights.

[cmartyn 0]

Yep.

Need to do something about blight too.

Should come as a warning to all Nutmeggers who own some shack on what has become million dollar ocean front in the last few years.

I dont get it.. the water is freaking BROWN!

[Veiled Princess 1]

Freedom of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you have enough money