Like this:

Most of us Americans rarely think about the government (city, state, or federal) taking our property away from us.  When we think about it at all, it is the other guys, somewhere far away.  I remember hearing about the case in New London, Connecticut; where the city took some ladies house and told her she had to move.  However, I wasn’t much into politics around that time, so I really didn’t give it much thought.

Recently, I’ve been reading Judge Napolitano’s book “Lies the Government Told You” and it had a section on eminent domain and how the government has taken people’s homes and businesses for no better reason than to give contracts to private companies to build factories, shopping centers, and other businesses.

Then today I watched the videos below of Brian Rainville who owns a dairy farm in Franklin Vermont.  The Department of Homeland Security wants to take five acres of his land so they can expand the current Morses Line Crossing at the Canadian border.  They plan to build an $8 million complex and multiple lanes (this is only a small two lane road). 

Now I’m all for protecting our borders and securing our land.  However, this is just another example of crazy politics and federal government running amok!

Statistics from the Customs and Border Protection agency show just over 14,800 vehicles cross at this border crossing every year.  That equates to 2 ½ cars an hour.  Brian says that the crossing is not even open 24 hours a day and when it is, the government employees sit about watching the “grass grow”. 

Now, if the government was really interested in spending less money and using common sense, they could spend a small fraction of that amount by hiring local contractors in the area to renovate the existing structure and grounds.  Here is a picture of the station:

 For the small amount of business it does, simple renovation verses building an $8 million complex would be the responsible way to go.

This may end up being another case for the Supreme Court, but the likelihood of them voting in favor of Brian Rainville is probably small.  They have a history of siding with the government.

Here are just a few cases:

Berman v. Parker (1954)
Federal government tore down a local store so that a private company could build a redevelopment project.  The Supreme Court paid little attention to the “public use” requirement and decided that the Washington, DC area where the store was located was blighted, even though the store itself was not blighted. 

Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit (1981)
Supreme Court of Michigan permitted the government of the City of Detroit to wipe out a community in order to let General Motors build as assembly plant.  They kicked 3468 people from their homes.  The Court justified the taking saying that the city is creating 6000 jobs by building the plant and were assured that the land would be for public use.

Kelo v. New London (2005)
Wilhelmina Dery (87) lived in her house since her birth in 1918 and was planning to stay there with her husband, Charles (86) until she died.  The Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 to let the city of New London take the home.  They took over a nine-acre residential neighborhood and gave it to a private developer called the New London Development Corp.  The city brought in Pfizer, a giant pharmaceutical company, to build headquarters in New London.  November 9, 2009, Pfizer’s announced it would leave New London in 2011, moving most of its New London employees to nearby Groton, Connecticut.  Urban village was never built and land remains barren.

Justice O’Connor dissent: “The Public Use Clause has no realistic import.  For 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.  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.” 

Justice Thomas dissent:  “Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities”

The 5^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 From Judge Napolitano’s book, he says:

Jeffersonians take on it – eminent domain should not be permitted under any circumstance; namely, that only by mutual consent and a fair bargain, but never against your will, could the government end up owning your property. 

Hamiltonians take on it – they argued that the government could take any land it wants for free, just like the British kings at one time could and did.

Traditionally, a government taking has meant that if someone’s house stood where the government planned a roadway or a post office or a school, the person would be forced to move in order to accommodate the public project, and the government would pay the owner for the market value of the vacated property. 

The amendment came about to protect private property from the government and was drafted with the lingering memory of British soldiers taking the colonists’ property.

With more and more cases of eminent domain being upheld by the Supreme Court, any citizen of the United States could be in danger of losing their house and land or any reason the city, state, or federal government deems is in the “best interest” of the public.  I, especially, think of environmentalists with their desire to create eco-villages and urban planning.

I wish I could tell you what we, as citizens, could do to change this trend.  The only way I know of that I can get involved is to talk with my Senators and my House Representative to see if they will introduce an amendment that will make it unconstitutional for the government to take private property without the owner’s consent.  As we have seen, they cannot be trusted to only take it under very unusual and special circumstances.

Advertisement