Our forefather's understood the value of property rights in a free society. That is why they included the phrase "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." in the fifth amendment of the Constitution. They understood a need for government, at very limited times, to seize property with the caveat that the property would be for public use, things such as roads, schools, townhalls, etc.
The Supreme Court, though, has redefined "public use" now to mean something closer to "public purpose." No longer is the taking permitted only if the state has an important need for the property, such as a road or bridge which everyone needed. Now our property can be taken if the some local Government bureaucrat or elected official determines that there might possibly more economic use of our property by somebody else, a real-estate developer, an employer who needs to expand his business (thus creating jobs), or maybe a big box store which will generate more sales tax. And, since local governments always think that they need the extra tax money they will receive if somebody else gets your house, they will take it.
Understanding the nature of man and the nature of power, I can guarantee you that this enlargement of the state's power will result in fiscal extravagance and theft. "But wait, Randy," you say. "Doesn't the state/local government still have to compensate you justly? How can thievery enter into the picture?"
Good question. I'm glad you asked. There are several ways. First, just compensation does not mean fair market value. Professor Stephen Bainbridge, a UCLA Law professor explains this concept much better than I could.
"First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for over a 100 years. In other words... the government will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners. Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer. If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result , the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes) , and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjective and objective senses."Secondly, after the property has been seized and turned over to another private citizen, there is no recourse for the original owner if the project is never undertaken or the government miscalculated and the new use is not more economically valuable to the community. In fact, once property is transferred, in the absence of fraud or bad faith, there is no easy way apparent to return the property, even if the new owner changes his mind, goes broke, or gets a better offer.
The sad fact is that without strong private property protection rights, the nature of a man in power is to use government to steal from the poor to give to the rich. There is no longer any incentive for a person to speculate in land. I know of a guy who bought his house because he knew it was in the path of development. He had hoped to cash in about five years when the developers came knocking on his door. He understood that the land will be worth a lot more then than it is now. However, under this new ruling, a developer can come in and low-ball an offer. When my friend refuses the low-ball offer, the developer will turn to the mob (oops, I mean local government) to force the sale of his house. Once government determines what it thinks "just compensation" is, my buddy will be lucky to break even. His investment has just become worthless. Why would anyone take risks like this in the future?
That is why we need a property rights amendment. Congress must clearly layout the protections people have when it comes to that which they own. However, I am sure that Congress will stand quietly on the sidelines. They don't want private property protections. They want the power. So, instead of actually working to protect that which we work for, they will work to protect to keep us from feeling offended. What a great set of priorities.
This is indeed a sad day for freedom-loving people, as we see yet another fierce blow to liberty. Liberty is not quite dead yet in America, but she is on her knees, arms bound behind her. Her body is battered and bruised and her skin portrays the open wounds left by the whip of socialism. Yet, even as the black-robed executioner stands above her with sword drawn, she holds her head high and with eyes of fire she silently accuses all who stand by. To those who would seek to oppress those eyes say, "Fear me. For the fire of liberty will never burn out. It may smolder in the ashes. But someone, somewhere, at sometime will pick up that ember, blow on it and reignite the people's passion for me. And that passion will sweep across the people like a wildfire."
No comments:
Post a Comment