An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Abusing the Fifth Amendment
Eminent Domain: The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
This has become an issue of right versus wrong lately. You have city governments deciding that they know a better way for the city to make money from your property. You stand in their way. They find a way to condemn your property, even though under normal circumstances, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the property. You’ve paid your mortgage, perhaps in full. You pay your annual taxes, never in arrears. Yet, there is some fat cat who is buying up the properties surrounding yours, and YOU are in the way of their progress.
The case that brought this all to light was Kelo v. City of New London. If you’ll recall, the city decided that the folks who had lived in their homes, raised their families, paid their bills needed to sell and vacate. Why? Because the city had big plans for their property, which didn’t include allowing them to remain in their homes. Unfortunately, for ALL of us, the Supreme Court agreed.
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.
Hmmm…..
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.
Let’s take a look at the Fifth Amendment, shall we?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Obviously, I’m no lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. But I do know right from wrong. And what this ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court was just wrong. It’s also opened up a whole new can of worms for the American people, all across the country.
Closer to home, is the case of Joy Ford, owner of Country International Records, located on “Music Row” in Nashville. Tomorrow I will be attending a press conference addressing the problems that Metropolitan Development Housing Agency is causing Ms Ford. From a June 20 article in the Nashville Business Journal:
Ford had been offered at least $600,000 for the building and property, but has said in the past she either doesn’t want to sell at all, or she wants $12 million.
Ms. Ford doesn’t expect her price of 12mil to be met. The lady doesn’t want to sell her property. The article states it’s a 60’s era building. Well, so are a lot of family homes. Now, I would question, if the private developer who wants this property is going to “put up a parking lot” for the sole purpose of his development, is that for the public good?
For more information on this case, please see:
Will the Circle be Unbroken, Part I
Will the Circle be Unbroken, Part II
Will the Circle be Unbroken, Part III
Houston developer not keeping up its property
Tomorrow morning, I’ll see for myself if MDHA has a legitimate case, or if they are using a very flawed Supreme Court ruling to screw over the “little guy” in favor big business. Music Row is one of those places you’ve heard of, even if you don’t listen to country music. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of Elvis. This is a large part of American history, but what I’ve seen so far, it’s turning into an ugly concrete block of big motels and chain restaurants. If we continue to destroy the ‘flavor’ of what makes various cities and towns, all we’ll have is the butt ugly concrete and glass that keeps popping up all over the place.
Previous post: Abusing “Eminent Domain”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Joy Ford refusal is all about feeling slighted by the more successful people on Music Row. Her building has no windows and is surrounded by barbed wire. No significant piece of music was written there according to the Country Music Hall of Fame.
If the developers are allowed to proceed, all the business owners on Demonbreun will benefit. It will also open Division St. to more development and generate tax revenues for the city.
Nashville as whole will benefit more from her building’s absence than its presence.
@vivamadrid:
And you know this how? Have you personally spoken to Mrs Ford? Or are you taking your talking points from those who are in favor of stealing other people’s property?