This land is not your land
Chad Koskie
Issue date: 6/30/05 Section: Opinion
The three things that all Americans hold very dearly to them are their rights to life, liberty and property. It is the foundation of the American Dream. But, the Supreme Court decided that maybe the whole idea of having a right to your property wasn't such a good idea after all.
In a landmark decision before the end of its term last week, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for a local government to seize private property if the land is going to be used for "public benefit," according to the Chicago Tribune.
This runs counter to almost everything this country was founded on. This is worlds away from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that no private property shall be "taken for public use, without just compensation."
Public use and public benefit are two totally different things. Public use means fire departments, utilities, schools - land for the public to use. That makes sense and doesn't leave a whole lot of room for abuse or unfair practice. Public benefit is left up to local politicians and is totally open for abuse.
It doesn't matter that your land may have been in your family's possession for generations - if some money-hungry politician decides that a shiny new Walgreens or Lowe's would have greater benefit, you would have no choice in the matter. Some bureaucrats will decide what "fair value" is for your house, and you would have no choice but to take it.
That doesn't sound like something that should happen in the United States. Don't we have the ability to decide the best use for our own land?
"Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (which you can read for yourself at www.supremecourtus.gov). "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Instead of currently crafting a totally unnecessary amendment to ban flag burning, the Republican-controlled Congress should be crafting an amendment around this abominable ruling. You know, the Republicans, the party that used to be about individual rights and small government. Is an amendment to prevent flag burning the best they can do?
I'm glad every other problem in this country has been solved so Congress can worry about whether or not someone burns an American flag. I don't agree with flag burning in the least, but I can tell you this: I would rather have a group of hippies in my yard burning an American flag than city officials on bulldozers making way for a brand new strip mall.
In a landmark decision before the end of its term last week, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for a local government to seize private property if the land is going to be used for "public benefit," according to the Chicago Tribune.
This runs counter to almost everything this country was founded on. This is worlds away from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that no private property shall be "taken for public use, without just compensation."
Public use and public benefit are two totally different things. Public use means fire departments, utilities, schools - land for the public to use. That makes sense and doesn't leave a whole lot of room for abuse or unfair practice. Public benefit is left up to local politicians and is totally open for abuse.
It doesn't matter that your land may have been in your family's possession for generations - if some money-hungry politician decides that a shiny new Walgreens or Lowe's would have greater benefit, you would have no choice in the matter. Some bureaucrats will decide what "fair value" is for your house, and you would have no choice but to take it.
That doesn't sound like something that should happen in the United States. Don't we have the ability to decide the best use for our own land?
"Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (which you can read for yourself at www.supremecourtus.gov). "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Instead of currently crafting a totally unnecessary amendment to ban flag burning, the Republican-controlled Congress should be crafting an amendment around this abominable ruling. You know, the Republicans, the party that used to be about individual rights and small government. Is an amendment to prevent flag burning the best they can do?
I'm glad every other problem in this country has been solved so Congress can worry about whether or not someone burns an American flag. I don't agree with flag burning in the least, but I can tell you this: I would rather have a group of hippies in my yard burning an American flag than city officials on bulldozers making way for a brand new strip mall.