With the ruling by the United States Supreme Court that cities could seize private property with eminent domain and turn the property over to private developers for the public good, an all out assault began on private property owners by out of control city politicians seeking to increase tax revenue. Private property only remains private until city officials decide they need it for some grand scheme. In effect, the Supreme Court opened the door for a version of tyranny at the local level.

A couple in Norwood, Ohio, contested the city’s taking of their property for a planned project to increase tax revenue at the expense of the property of the rightful owners. The Ohio Supreme Court ended the taking of the plaintiff’s property and the city counsel and mayor weren’t happy about it. Tim Burke, Norwood's special counsel in the case, said the city is unlikely to appeal. And Mayor Tom Williams contended that the project was lawful then and still should be. (Source news article at link cited.)

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/607270366

Of course, those who cook up schemes to benefit the government always think that their ideas are inviolate. The mayor said that he thought it was lawful, but the good mayor needs an intensive course in the Constitution of the United States along with the five justices who ruled in the Kelo decision that created such takings. The decision hinged on the definition of public versus private. In essence, the ruling changed the definition of public to mean anything that would benefit the public (read that government) even if the property was to be given to the private sector, which in the end would increase the tax take for the city, and thus we have arrived at the public good ingredient.

Increasingly, the courts, Congress, and individual states and cities are edging ever closer to the ideology that the public good and welfare outweighs the liberty that the ownership of private property creates and perpetuates. Though those in office deny that their schemes are dangerous to liberty, nonetheless they take that which has been earned honestly and treat the rightful owners no differently than did the rulers in charge of the Communist system which is still operative in many parts of Africa where property is taken for the common good. Under the Communist system all things are subject to confiscation for the public good since the public takes precedent over all else. Individual property and the attendant rights that go with the property become meaningless.

City after city have ordinances that control the use of property, many of which are there because the cities seek to increase their revenues by using the fees permits create. The other factor is control of property which always tags along with such permits. The truth is that a large number of the property use ordinances are useless and only exist to give the cities an excuse for taking property, such as the blighted area ordinances that allow a city to take property that the officials declare run down and unsightly. Then for the good of the public, the properties are given to private developers for the tax revenue they will generate.

The people of the United States need to cast a critical eye at decisions used for taking property for the benefit of others. If such rulings aren’t challenged and overturned, private property ownership will go the way of the extinct species. The only ones who will own property will be the cities and big private developers and conglomerates who inevitably become entwined with elected and appointed officials to the extent that no private property can be safe from their clutches.

In Sorting It Out, it is obvious that the encroachment on property rights in this nation cannot continue if we wish to remain free and enjoy the liberty that property ownership brings.

© 08-02-2006 DEC