Belmont University

Implications of the Kelo Decision

The Kelo Decision, which has effectively taken away private property rights, is getting heated attention in the blog-sphere, but only passing attention in the main-stream media. Inc.com has yet to even run a story on this decision, which has more impact on the fundamental rights of small business than any other decision in recent memory.

Why the fuss? Justice O'Conner captured the magnitude of the impact of this decision in her writing for the dissent:

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Up until this decision, government could only take private property for what was considered truly "the common good," such as roads, hospitals, military bases, or utilities. Now those limitations are gone. Large corporations (such as the Best Buy case I wrote about yesterday) and developers with deep pockets can collude with local governments to hatch all kinds of plans to take away property. Some are arguing that governmental officials will surely use common sense. But we know better.

Again from Justice O'Conner:

"The Court rightfully admits, however, that the judiciary cannot get bogged down in predictive judgments about whether the public will actually be better off after a property transfer. In any event, this constraint has no realistic import. For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

But, there is a glimmer of hope in all of the gloom that surrounds this decision. The door was left open for states to enact laws that specifically restrict seizing property in the name of private economic development. A handful of states already have such laws. It is my hope that groups like NFIB and the Office of Advocacy of the SBA lead the same kind of charge that they have for regulatory flexibility. We need a national movement to block the effects of the Kelo Decision state-by-state, so that all small business owners and home owners can regain their rights to private property.


|

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Implications of the Kelo Decision:

» 6/27/05 Carnival of the Capitalists from BusinessBlogCast - Text
Welcome to the Carnival of the Capitalists, your source for the best business blogging of the past week. This week's carnival was done with the help of Brian Gongol's template. I also labeled a few of my favorite posts with... [Read More]

» Economic Implications of Kelo from Mover Mike
A number of blogs have written on a subject I've posted about, that of the economic implications of Kelo v New London. The Entrepreneurial Mind, included in A number of blogs have written on a subject I've posted about, that of the economic implications of Kelo v New London. The Entrepreneurial Mind, included in [Read More]

» Cornwall: Kelo "a sad day for economic freedom." from BillHobbs.com
Entrepreneurship professor Jeff Cornwall calls the Kelo decision "a sad day for the economic freedom of both the small businesses and the individual citizens of America." Cornwall, professor of management and director of the Center for Entrepreneurship... [Read More]

» June 26, 2005 Carnival of the Capitalists from Gongol.com
Some personal favorite picks: Using technology to solve poverty, how to stop the damage caused by Kelo, how California could be worse than Russia if you're planning to start a new business, an analysis of how socialist US health care really is, and how... [Read More]

Comments

Simple. Just put up no tresspassing signs around the property. No one can go in except who you let in. Anyone attempting to can be held up by endless litigations after endless litigations.

OR
Refuse to leave unless the developer pays a higher value price than what you paid. Agree on the price and create a contract with a lawyer. You win.

You miss the point. Using eminent domain allows the government to take title of your property!! At that point, YOU are the trespasser!!

Tap it in and Comment, Please

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)