|
When Property Goes
Eminent domain
|
|
Sustainable Development,
Smart Growth, and Kelo:
Organized theft, by any name
By Tom DeWeese
Put yourself in the homeowner's
shoes. You buy a home for your family. Perhaps it's even handed
down from your father, or grandfather. It's a place you can
afford, in a neighborhood you like. The children have made
friends. You intend to stay, for the rest of your life.
As you plant your garden, landscape the yard, put up a swing
set for the kids, and mold your land into a home, unknown to
you, certain city officials are meeting around a table with
developers. In front of them are maps, plats, and photographs -
of your home. They talk of dollars - big dollars. Tax revenues
for the city, huge profits for the developer. A shopping center,
with all the trimmings, begins to take shape. You're not asked
for input, or permission. You're not even notified, until the
whole project is finalized, and the only minor detail is to get
rid of you.
Then the pressure begins. A notice comes in the mail, telling
you that the city intends to take your land. An offer of
compensation is made, usually, below the market price you could
get if you sold it yourself. The explanation given is that,
since the government is going to take the land, it's not worth
the old market price. Some neighbors begin to sell, and move
away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounts on you to
sell. Visits from government agents become routine. Newspaper
articles depict you as unreasonably holding up community
progress. They call you greedy. Finally, the bulldozers move in
on the properties already sold. The neighborhood becomes
unlivable. It looks like a war zone.
Like being attacked by a conquering army, you are finally
surrounded, with no place to run, but the courts. However,
you're certain of victory. The United States was built on the
very premise of the protection of private property rights. How
can a government possibly be allowed to take anyone's home for
private gain?
Under any circumstances, this should be considered criminal
behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding
their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered
graft. That's why RICO laws were created.
Finally, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg,
Kennedy, and Breyer shock the nation, by ruling that officials,
who have behaved like Tony Soprano, are in the right, and you
have to vacate your property.
These four men and one woman have ruled that the United
States Constitution is truly meaningless. Their ruling in the
Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After declaring
that all property is subject to the whim of a government
official, it's just a short trip to declaring that government
can now confiscate anything we own; anything we create; anything
we believe.
Astonishing! The members of the Supreme Court have nothing to
do but defend the Constitution, and keep it the pure document
the Founding Fathers created to recognize and protect the rights
with which we were born. They sit in their lofty ivory tower,
never worrying about job security with their life-time
appointments. And yet, they have obviously missed finding a copy
of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the
Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned
the new government would work. They have missed the collected
writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and
George Washington, just to mention a very few. It's obvious,
because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have
reached this decision - unless implementing another agenda was
their purpose.
I don't have the benefit of the Justices' grand staffs, or
unending salaries. But, just a little research has turned up
pretty much everything Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and
Breyer would have needed, to reach a logical conclusion: that
protection of private property rights are the most important
rights, vital to the very foundation of a free society.
Our Founding Fathers left no doubt in their writings, their
deeds, or their governing documents as to where they stood on
the vital importance of private property. John Locke, the man
whom the Founders followed, as they created this nation, said,
"Government has no other end than the preservation of property."
John Adams said,
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is
not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy
and tyranny commence."
One would be hard-pressed to find a single word in the
writings of the Founding Fathers to support the premise that
it's okay to take private property for economic development. To
the contrary, they believed that the root of economic prosperity
is the protection of private property.
So, how did Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer
miss such a rock-solid foundation of American law? Perhaps they
didn't. Perhaps they chose to ignore it, in favor of another
agenda. Specifically, Agenda 21.
For several years, certain members of the Supreme Court have
been discussing the need to review international law and foreign
court decisions to determine U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Justice
Breyer has been the most outspoken for this policy, saying, "We
face an increasing number of domestic legal questions that
directly implicate foreign or international law."
What international laws are these? In general, the most
pervasive are a series of U.N. international treaties, including
several that address issues of climate, resource use, biological
diversity, and community development. Specifically, Agenda 21,
signed by the United States at the U.N.'s Earth Summit in 1992,
calls for implementing what former Vice President Al Gore called
a "wrenching transformation" of our nation, through a policy
called Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development is the
official policy of the United States, and in almost every single
city and small burg in the nation.
Sustainable Development is top-down control, a ruling
principle that affects nearly every aspect of our lives,
including; the kind of homes we may live in; water policy that
dictates the amount each American may use in a day; drastic
reductions of energy use; the imposition of public
transportation; even the number of inhabitants that may be
allowed inside city borders. Most Americans have heard of a
small part of this policy, operating under the name Smart
Growth. Agenda 21 outlines specific goals, and a tight
timetable for implementation. In June, 2005, the U.N. held a
major gathering in San Francisco, where the mayors of cities
from across the nation, and around the world, gathered to pledge
to impose Sustainable polices.
In order to meet such goals, federal, state, and local
governments are scrambling to impose strict policies on
development and land use. The use of Eminent Domain has become a
favorite tool. Sustainable Development calls for partnerships
between the public sector (your local government) and private
businesses.
Now, as the public/private partnerships move to enforce
Sustainable Development in local communities, an unholy alliance
is also forming, allowing corrupt politicians to line their
pockets and gain power, as they partner with select businesses
and developers to build personal wealth and power. They plot to
take land that isn't theirs, for personal gain, while claiming
it's for the "public good." That's all the excuse they've
needed, to hide their true intent.
However, things have been changing, as such brutal, organized
theft has spread across the nation, in the name of community
development and environmental protections. Americans have
started to fight back to protect their property. In Oregon,
people went to the ballot box, and shocked lawmakers by passing
Measure 37, which says the government must either pay full price
for any land taken, or waive the regulation, and leave the
property owner alone. In Wisconsin, the state legislature passed
a bill to stop Smart Growth policies that are destroying
property owners. In Michigan, the state Supreme Court overturned
the precedent-setting ruling it made more than 20 years ago,
that allowed the use of Eminent Domain in taking property for
private use. In fact, it was that original ruling that had been
used by communities across the nation to justify their own
Eminent Domain takings.
Clearly, the nation has started to rise up, to stop this
assault on private property. Without the power to grab property
at will, the ability for communities to implement Sustainable
Development has come into question.
Those who support Sustainable Development, and Agenda 21,
needed something big to put things back on track. The Supreme
Court, which has already stated that it must look to
international laws and treaties to decide American law, provided
the answer. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer chose
Sustainable Development and Agenda 21, over the
Constitution of the United States.
However, the effort may well be backfiring on the
Sustainablists as the nation is reacting in force to protect
property rights. Now, state legislatures and the U.S. Congress,
are rushing to produce legislation to restore property rights
protections. Even Americans who have rarely uttered a political
thought, are suddenly becoming feverish with zeal for the Fifth
Amendment. Americans may be learning, all over again, what the
Founding Fathers knew - that the right to own and control
private property is the most important right
That is all well and good, of course, but Americans must do
much more than just get upset. They need to get behind those
legislative efforts, at every level of government, to assure
passage. They must dig in at the local level, to foil efforts by
their mayors and city councils to impose Eminent Domain against
their neighbors. We must run this organized theft (now
masquerading as the "common good") out of town on a rail.
And, don't forget to leave room on that rail for Stevens,
Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer.
Tom DeWeese is the president of the
American Policy Center,
and publisher/editor of "The DeWeese Report," a monthly public
affairs newsletter.
|
