On a More Serious Note - Government Taking of Private Property

I don't often get too serious on this here blog. The world's already a serious enough place, you don't need me getting all Wiggy with it.

In the USA, there has always been a concept called "Eminent Domain" (which has nothing to do with Eminem) which says that the government (local, state, federal) can take someone's private property - usually land - for public use, without permission from the property's owner. Generally, compensation must be given, but the agency that takes the property also determines what the property is worth.

This has raised a lot of hackles in the past, and although it does not sit well with a lot of folks, it has been the law of the land in the USA since there was a USA.

Let's say that a city wants to get rid of a slum and replace it with modernized public housing. They attempt to buy the properties in question, but if the owners do not wish to sell, the government entity in question condemns the property, throws everyone out, tears down the buildings, and builds what they want.

The key, until today, has been that this taking has had to be for a public purpose. In other words, if the government was going to interfere with the private property rights of an individual, they had to first demonstrate that it served some compelling public interest.

This is a property rights versus needs of society issue, and there can never be an answer that serves everyone or make ever buddy happy. Society has needs - if they are genuine, they must trump the needs of private property owners if those collide. I'll buy that.

Supreme Court Expands Power of Eminent Domain - LA Times

The Constitution says government may take private property "for public use" if it pays the owners "just compensation." Originally, public use meant the land was used for roads, canals or military bases. In the 19th century, railroads were permitted to take private lands because they served the public.

But today, things changed.

The US Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that government entities had the right under Eminent Domain to take private property and give it to another private entity. The 'catch' is that it must be 'for the public good'. Of course, the Justices failed to define what the 'public good' might be. They weaseled on that - it could be a small town that wants a Walmart, and Walmart will build one for them if it gets the nice private lake your house sits on and your family has owned for a gazillion years. Walmarts are good, says the small town - and you get to go live in your car.

It is decisions like this that really gripe my wagger.

Smooches,

Wiggy