From Hit and Run:
Yesterday the Norwood, Ohio, City Council voted, 8-1, to dispossess Carl and Joy Gamble of the home they've lived in for 35 years. In another example of the eminent domain abuse the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this term, the city is taking the property on behalf of a wealthy developer who plans to build offices, shops, housing, and restaurants. The justification is that the new development will bring in more tax revenue.
The Gambles, represented by the Institute for Justice (which also represents the New London, Connecticut, property owners whose case will be heard by the Supreme Court), have been fighting the seizure for two years. "I don't like to remove anyone from their home," one city council member said. "But it is in the best interests of the city to take this property."
More here.
Such property cases have become a hot topic for small-government, laissez-faire types, as these land seizures betray any basic understanding of the sanctity of private possession and the enforcement of contracts—two issues guaranteed to fire up libertarians and classical liberals. The idea that the state can simply say, ‘You’re going to have to move out of your house, and it’s because we’ve decided that it’s for the greater good’ is almost Soviet in its caustic disregard for personal liberty and the right to your own property. The U.S. constitution clearly states that any seizure of property must be for ‘public use.’ Cases like this suggest that politicians are now defining ‘public use’ as a tax grab, which in all likelihood was not its original intent.
Surely there must be another explanation. Seeking it, I called Norwood councilman Mike Fulmer, the source of the ‘best interests’ quote above, and asked him a simple question: Why do you think it’s okay for your council to take these people’s property? Here's a bit of our give and take:
Fulmer: The property in question is being developed…it’s under urban renewal. Everyone else has left the area, and we’ve gotten 66 signatures from people who want out. The area is deteriorating every year and it’s getting worse…
Heffernan: So what will you build there?
Fulmer: A shopping complex and two office buildings.
Heffernan: A shopping mall?
Fulmer: Ah, no, not a mall. I think it’s called a lifestyle centre.
Heffernan: Surely you can see why these people are upset.
Fulmer: If I were in their shoes I’d do exactly the same thing. But the courts have ruled in the city’s favour. The constitution gives the government the right to seize property. This is in the best interests of the city.
Heffernan: Okay, well thanks for your time-
Fulmer: Let me ask you something. The government can close down businesses and people who’ve worked in a place for 15, 20 years can lose their jobs or have to go elsewhere. The government will say it’s for the best. Should they be allowed to do that?
Heffernan: I would argue that your government should have no right to displace people from their homes or force a business to relocate, and certainly not do it under the guise of the 'public good.'
We spoke some more and Fulmer seemed generally sympathetic; of course, it must be easy to be sympathetic since his side won the case. One thing he mentioned several times was the idea that in certain situations people should not be able to hold up the wishes of the majority, be it in this case or to use another of his examples, a farmer whose land is blocking a freeway development. He also argued that the Gamble’s hold-out was hurting the other people who were desperate to move on and collect the compensation package the government was offering. He was polite and articulate, which is exactly why he and people like him are so dangerous. Having the power of the courts and misinterpretation of their nation’s constitution behind them, they can explain and sympathize all they want as they force people to bow to their idea of the all-mighty common good.