Fear | Doug Thompson

Ran into a former high school classmate last night at a meeting of the Floyd Town Council. She and her husband are afraid, very afraid, they will lose her family home to the town’s planned business district revitalization plan.

She is not alone in fearing the town government will run roughshod over private property rights in the name of “progess.” The owners of Floyd’s widely-praised Angels in the Attic also feel threatened by the town’s efforts to secure a state grant to pay for widespread improvements downtown.

“Is nothing safe?” Her question was not rhetorical. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s incredible decision last week allowing the town of New London, CT, to seize homeowner’s property for private commercial developments, those who own property realize that nothing is, in fact, safe from the long arm of the government.

This is an extremely serious issue with serious consequences for the time-honored tradition that a person’s home is their castle. The anquish on my high school friend’s face was neither hysterical nor exaggerated. It was real.

And the threat is real. All of us who own property or hope one day to own a home should be afraid. It has happened before and, thanks, to the highest court in the land, it could all too easily happen again. John Prine’s words from his song Paradise come hauntingly to mind:

Then the coal company came with the world’s largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.

And daddy won’t you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I’m sorry my son, but you’re too late in asking
Mister Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away

5 Comments

fletch on July 8, 2005 at 1:11 am

I’m not a lawyer but just what did the Supreme Court do in this case? They did not rule an existing law as unconstitutional. They did not reverse a previously established precedent. All they did was affirm the existing law. If they had ruled the other way, would they not then be “activist” judges? I’m not supporting this decision and wish it had gone the other way, but it seems in a republic, citizens should be able to pass laws to not permit eminent domain for private development. Is the problem with the Court or with a citizenry that doesn’t know to elect representatives to pass laws protecting individual property rights? One could argue that a restrictive eminent domain law would be struck down by the SC based on established precedent. In that case, perhaps Congress could pass a Constitutional Amendment for property rights, rather than say, one about flag burning. We collectively chose a Congress that can pass legislation in one day for one brain dead citizen and thinks a flag burning amendment is a worthy cause. You tell me if a citizenry that elects such representatives deserves to have property rights.

Doug Thompson on July 8, 2005 at 3:30 am

Fletch, it would be nice if it were that simple. The issue of eminent domain is muddy because of expanded interpretations that had little to do with the intent or the law. Once intended for use only for projects like highways or schools, some communities, like New London, have broadened their interpretation of “projects in the public interest” to include those of private developers. Those who felt New London overstepped their authority looked to the court to define the limits of the law. They chose not to in a split decision with the dissenters saying, in very strong language, that the court had abandoned the very principle of private property protection.

Before 9/11, the idea that an American could be held without charge or without the right to counsel was unthinkable. Now it is common practice under the USA Patriot Act. They way to change it is to rid government of those elected officials who support such actions but with elections every two years for Representatives, four years for President and six years for Senators it will take time. A majority of the Senators who voted for the Patriot Act have not stood for re-election yet.

The fear is real, as it should be, because the threat is real, as it should not be.

Doug

Stephanie on September 4, 2006 at 4:07 am

Can anyone give me any useful links to find useful information on this topic? I’m writing a research paper on Eminent Domain. Any help is appreciated. Thank You.

fletch on July 8, 2005 at 1:11 am

I’m not a lawyer but just what did the Supreme Court do in this case? They did not rule an existing law as unconstitutional. They did not reverse a previously established precedent. All they did was affirm the existing law. If they had ruled the other way, would they not then be “activist” judges? I’m not supporting this decision and wish it had gone the other way, but it seems in a republic, citizens should be able to pass laws to not permit eminent domain for private development. Is the problem with the Court or with a citizenry that doesn’t know to elect representatives to pass laws protecting individual property rights? One could argue that a restrictive eminent domain law would be struck down by the SC based on established precedent. In that case, perhaps Congress could pass a Constitutional Amendment for property rights, rather than say, one about flag burning. We collectively chose a Congress that can pass legislation in one day for one brain dead citizen and thinks a flag burning amendment is a worthy cause. You tell me if a citizenry that elects such representatives deserves to have property rights.
Doug Thompson on July 8, 2005 at 3:30 am

Fletch, it would be nice if it were that simple. The issue of eminent domain is muddy because of expanded interpretations that had little to do with the intent or the law. Once intended for use only for projects like highways or schools, some communities, like New London, have broadened their interpretation of “projects in the public interest” to include those of private developers. Those who felt New London overstepped their authority looked to the court to define the limits of the law. They chose not to in a split decision with the dissenters saying, in very strong language, that the court had abandoned the very principle of private property protection.

Before 9/11, the idea that an American could be held without charge or without the right to counsel was unthinkable. Now it is common practice under the USA Patriot Act. They way to change it is to rid government of those elected officials who support such actions but with elections every two years for Representatives, four years for President and six years for Senators it will take time. A majority of the Senators who voted for the Patriot Act have not stood for re-election yet.

The fear is real, as it should be, because the threat is real, as it should not be.

Doug
Stephanie on September 4, 2006 at 4:07 am

Can anyone give me any useful links to find useful information on this topic? I’m writing a research paper on Eminent Domain. Any help is appreciated. Thank You.