Terry Everett, November 14, 2005

The old saying "A man’s home is his castle" is as much a part of our American way of life as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, a surprise ruling by the highest court in the land in late June has opened the doors to government seizure of private property for just about any purpose. In response, the U.S. House says "not so fast".

In America, the right to own property is protected by the "takings clause" of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which requires the government to use "eminent domain" to condemn and take private property for "public use." Over the last hundred years, the Supreme Court has ruled that "public use" or "public purpose" should be limited to the construction of roads, railways, hospitals, or military facilities, or to eliminate public harm such as blighted areas.

While there have been incidences of government attempting to step over the line to seize private property, perhaps the most egregious case yet was recently taken to the Supreme Court. The city of New London, Connecticut decided that it would use its eminent domain authority to force nine private property owners to sell their homes so that a private development (hotel, health club, and offices) could be constructed. The city decided the "public purpose" in this case would be additional revenue generated from the large commercial development.

On June 23, the Supreme Court, ruling in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, declared that New London indeed had a right to exercise eminent domain because the area had been judged by the city as blighted. The displaced residents disagreed, saying they were pushed aside in favor of wealthy developers. Thus the path has been cleared for governments across America to place a higher value on revenue than the sanctity of individual ownership of property. Our homes, places of business, and land are now subject to a potential forced sale by the government.

In such cases, it is likely the majority of the property that will actually be taken as a result of the Kelo precedent will be owned by the disadvantaged, the poor, or the elderly. These vulnerable citizens are not only likely to be targets because of where they live, but because they have fewer resources with which to fight the taking of their property.

As justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her dissent of the Kelo ruling, "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."

This is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The takings clause was designed to protect private ownership (especially those who cannot defend what is rightfully and legally theirs), not outline the conditions for its destruction.

To counter this terrible error made by the Supreme Court, the U.S. House overwhelmingly voted 376 to 38 on November 3 to pass the Private Property Rights Protection Act (HR 4128). It would hit states and localities where it hurts -- their pocketbooks -- if they pursue unjust seizures of private property. They would be barred from receiving Federal economic development funds for no less than two years. I was pleased to support this legislation and shall continue to work in defense of private property rights.

Congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, represents Alabama's Second Congressional District, which includes the state capitol, Montgomery.