Bulldozing property rights

This is a topic I've yet to address in any detail here. I've been reading Boortz for a while now and this is one of the issues that is most important to him. In today's edition of Neal's Nuze, he links to yet another story of a local government spuriously invoking eminent domain so that it can turn over land to a private developer.

So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.

Their property, they said, is not for sale.

In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.

According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.

Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.

I agree with Neal on this issue. This kind of stunt is totally against the original concept of eminent domain and is intended mostly, if not solely, to increase tax revenue. Originally the idea was that a government could take land if it was needed for a project like a military base or a road; something that is actually part of that government's job to build and maintain. Projects like condos, shopping malls, hotels, etc. do not fit that definition since they are private developments. And even though, in this case, it's being done by a "non-profit organization appointed by the city," it doesn't make any difference. It's still a private organization regardless of its profit status.

Here's the way it's supposed to work. A private firm wants to develop a shopping mall. They try to buy the land from the current owners. If the owners don't want to sell, the firm ups the price. If one or more owners still won't sell regardless of price, that's just tough luck; go somewhere else.

Hopefully, when the Supreme Court rules on the case mentioned in the article, the justices will come down on the side of property rights. If the government can just come in and take your land, your home, your possessions, for any reason whatsoever and especially to give to private developers, then there is no longer any true freedom or liberty. Instead, you're on the way to tyranny.