Supreme decision, bad decision
I've got a sinking feeling that many Americans did not hear about yesterday's Supreme Court decision and of those who did, most didn't realize its implications. Cities may now bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a closely-divided Supreme Court ruled. Yes, PRIVATE development, not PUBLIC development. This is chilling.
Let that ruminate for a minute. In a statement for the minority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor scathingly blasted the decision, decrying that it bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. Writing for the wrong-headed 5-4 majority, Justice John Paul Stevens opined that New London, Connecticut could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He reasoned that since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue, it could be considered as public use even though it is a private-sector, for-profit redevelopment.
Bad precedent for America
With this decision, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court - Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy, have set a precedent for America, one it has not known since pre-revolutionary British colonial times. Now it is true that cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects and other public endeavors, did so legally so long as their actions promoted public use and public-sector welfare.
However, the city fathers of New London sued for permission to commit this outrage not out of any compassion for the public. Oh no, they pursued this because they are cash-strapped and require the six-square-mile area to be assessed and taxed on a much more lucrative commercial rather than residential basis.
Shrug indifferently if you will but with today's judiciary, it is not too farfetched to envision a case where, oh let's see...a family-run resort business with 1,000 feet of prime lake frontage has their property confiscated (purchase payment would be so trifling it might as well be confiscated) so that a county could allow private-sector developers to build, own, and operate a lakeside amusement park.
The reasoning? The park would provide jobs and serve as a financial shot in the arm for an economically-depressed jurisdiction, therefore it is all for the common good and public benefit. In my opinion, this is nothing more than another glaring example of unaccountable judicial hubris. Those five Supremes just collectively spat in the faces of every American property owner.
Slim chance for reversal
Wait, it gets better. This decision is, for all practical purposes, binding and final. The only way the Supreme Court can reverse this decision is to hear a similar case and then find for a dissimilar decision. That'll happen...when pigs fly.
Under the ruling, residents will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But it all depends on who determines what "just" is. "Just" is derived from the Latin iustitia, from iustus, and means to treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation. What is adequate or fair about having your home seized in this country because a developer wants to profit from your land?
B2 words of wisdom: Don't be stupid enough, not for one nanosecond, to think that this cannot possibly happen to you and your neighbors.