The Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. the city of New London, Conn., is probably the most damaging interpretation of the Constitution to be announced in the past 20 years.
In effect, the court ruled 5-4 that the taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is legal if done for “public benefit” rather than the actual wording, which is “public use.”
Interpreting words in the language to mean what they clearly do not mean is right out of Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” as when Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean , neither more nor less.”
Our language does change, but I missed the new usage of the term “public use” to mean “public benefit.” Obviously, any McDonald’s will provide more “public benefit” by an increase in taxes than will almost any single-family home.
There is almost universal condemnation of the ruling, particularly since it has potential negative impact on almost every citizen. I have seen support for the court’s position running as high as 14 percent and as low as 1 percent.
It may turn out that the ruling has more benefit in alerting the citizenry to judicial abuse than it actually does in seizing private property, because most states have, or will now pass, wording limiting the “taking” to blighted areas.
Of course there will be huge abuses; blight is in the eye of the beholder, and while no one thinks their home is blighted, every home is blighted to a city council seeking more tax revenue. California has a blight requirement, but, famously, the modest homes in Chavez Ravine were seized decades ago to give the land to Walter O’Malley for the building of Dodger Stadium.
The ruling constitutes an open season on homeowners. The American Civil Liberties Union contends that it defends the Constitution and favors the individual against government, yet where is the ACLU on this issue?
Direct action is the best answer for this egregious ruling, and at least one Californian has started the ball rolling. Darrow Clements, a political gadfly and one-time candidate for California governor, has filed with the city of Weare, N.H., to seize the 30-plus acre property of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, who voted in favor of the seizure of private property. Justice Souter pays only a few thousand dollars a year in property taxes, whereas Clements proposes a hotel, restaurant, and museum for the site, which will provide a “public benefit” in that it will increase the tax revenues for the city.
I do not know how serious a bid this is, or whether Mr. Clements has, or can raise the funds necessary for such a development, but I hope that efforts are being made to impose on the other justices who voted for the seizures.
I do hope the initiation of the effort has caused Souter to at least move to lobby the Weare City Council to stop the effort, and thereby at least acknowledge that his own home is in some jeopardy. If three burghers on the five-person council vote to condemn his property, Souter will have to take the effect of his vote on this issue seriously.
Clements intends to name his hotel the “Lost Liberty Hotel” and the restaurant the “Just Desserts Caf & #233;.” If nothing else, Clements has a fine sense of irony.
If not the hotel complex, perhaps the city of Weare needs a Wal-Mart, or an automobile factory, or just a huge shopping mall , all of which would provide more tax revenue than Souter’s modest home.
Clements has the right attitude, whether or not he can carry it off. Even if the five-member City Council should vote against the seizure of Souter’s property, I suspect that a sufficient number of citizens could be persuaded to move to the quaint community and vote in members of a council more receptive to the idea.
Too bad the Congress is moving in a bipartisan manner to nullify the decision before Clements can get his operation in order. Apparently, many of even the most liberal members of Congress will support the nullification.
Further individual protection can only be provided by state and local officials, and with the socialists in the California Legislature, it is incumbent that each candidate for mayor of San Diego be quizzed as to their position on eminent domain. The city of San Diego has used this unfortunate power in the past, but this decision has brought light, and needed heat, to an otherwise quiet and direct attack on our liberties.
The Supreme Court has done us all a favor in exposing what has been a creeping cancer on liberty, which they took one step too far.
Allen Polk Hemphill is a resident of Escondido.