Criminals in Office

Back in February this year, the majority decision in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London resulted in a monumental change in the principle of eminent domain. Whereas the government could previously claim lands only for "public use" due to the protections of the fifth amendment, this new decision established that anyone's property could be claimed so long as the goal of such seizure was to increase tax revenue.

In the majority opinion of the 5-4 decision, justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg absurdly extended the definition of "public use" to cases in which the seized private land would be transferred to other private parties. They argued that so long as the tax revenue from the new development exceeded that of the initial owner, the public benefitted and therefore the transfer fell under "public use."

Adding insult to injury, the city greatly undervalued the amount of compensation the homeowners were due, and when the 5-years of judicial proceedings ended, city officials announced that they would charge the homeowners tens of thousands of dollars in back-rent for the time they had been living "on public property."

These despicable acts show the true nature of the state, which has no reservations about robbing innocent people of their homes, and then charging them for it. The result of this decision is that any wealthy individual with sufficient political connections can force any number of residents from their homes, so long as what they build over the ruins of these people's homes brings in more money for the state. After the decision, most Americans were justifiably upset, although some blindly trusted that the powers granted by the decision would not be abused.

Even before the supreme court decision, governments throughout the country had been using similarly expanded definitions of "public use" to justify expelling families from their homes so that private developers could build malls, hotels, and casinos. In many cases, the studies supposedly demonstrating the benefit to the community are done by the developers themselves, and are riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations. In one case in Freeport, Texas, the government plans to displace numerous businesses and homes to make room for a privately-owned yacht marina. For more examples of these crimes, visit the Institute for Justice webpage.

In almost every one of these cases, in addition to being forced from their homes or losing their means of making a living when their businesses are forcefully closed, people's properties are extremely undervalued by the thieving government, usually only paying people around half the value of their property.

What kind of a government allows this sort of criminal behavior? What kind of court system condones these practices? If Americans cannot even be secure in their homes, and are always at risk of being robbed and displaced, how can we continue to call this a "free country"?

Shame on these thieves in suits, shame on the criminals in robes who facilitate these crimes, and shame on the developers who use the criminal state to make easy money off the suffering of others. What rights do we have, if not the right to protect our homes and livelihood? Our government would be wise to cease these inexcusable, autocratic practices, lest the people who provide their paychecks decide to treat them like the criminals they are.