COMMENTARY:

Will Bush Side with the Property Thieves?

The twist is that the Bush administration--self-proclaimed champion of the ownership society--will apparently give its blessing to the land heist. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[The] Administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain. Several property-rights advocacy organizations have publicly asked the administration to side with the landowners, but--ominously--there's been no response."

We've heard similar stories before, because this is happening all over the United States. As the Institute for Justice explains on its website: [The] City, the New London Development Corporation (a private development corporation) and Pfizer Corporation had reached an agreement. Pfizer would build a new facility nearby. The NLDC would take all the land in [Susette Kelos'] neighborhood and transfer it to a private developer who would in turn build an expensive hotel for Pfizer visitors, expensive condos for Pfizer employees, an office building for biotech companies, and other projects to complement the Pfizer facility. The State and the City would contribute millions of dollars. The only thing standing in the way was Susette and her neighbors.

Governments justify such plunder on the grounds that the higher tax revenues produced by the new uses will benefit the public. Bah! That?'s a tissue-thin rationalization for land grabs on behalf of the well-connected, but courts, unfortunately, are buying it.

It's a sad fact that the US Constitution permits governments to exercise the power of eminent domain. This power is wholly contrary to the spirit of the American founding and a throwback to absolute monarchy, in which the king was seen as the literal owner of the realm. All land was his, and people lived on it at his pleasure. If he wanted a parcel, he had only to take it.

America's Framers didn't dump this anti-individualist power, but they did seek to limit it. In the Fifth Amendment they specified that property could be taken for public use only, and that the owner was due just compensation. While that power still conflicts individual rights, at least it was subject to restrictions--if the "takings clause" were read literally, which it is not. When the Framers said "public use," they meant roads, post offices, and the like. There is no reason to believe they meant giving private land to businesses because higher tax revenues and jobs would be produced.

Kelo and her neighbors in the Fort Trumbull section of New London are not behaving like docile subjects. They sued, but the Connecticut Supreme Court last year ruled 4-3 in favor of the land thieves. So now the case has gone to the US Supreme Court (Kelo v. New London). Joining the property owners as friends of the Court are such champions of private property as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute. So far the Bush administration appears to be on the other side.

The US government is good at self-righteously lecturing others about human rights and morality. The Bush administration's cheerleaders condemn nearly any criticism of the president as a betrayal of America. But with the administration even considering siding with the land thieves, who is the real betrayer of America's ideals?

The Institute for Justice says, In just five years, the government filed or threatened condemnation of more than 10,000 properties for private parties. This is intolerable in an allegedly free society. When will the people demand that it stop?