Private-property rights trampled

| June 28, 2005 1:00 AM

The Daily Inter Lake

We haven't seen many examples of government "land grab" attempts in Montana.

But when they do happen - as they do from time to time - it always seems to be for the purpose of expanding some aspect of the public infrastructure such as highways.

But imagine if the state were trying to seize private property - a junkyard business down the street or maybe even your home - to accommodate a new car dealership, with the "public use" being a potential increase in jobs and property tax revenue.

This seems unthinkable and virtually impossible in light of the country's long legal deference to property rights. But now the U.S. Supreme Court has made it so, grossly expanding the powers of government and conversely diminishing the rights of the American citizenry.

In one of its worst decisions ever, the high court ruled last week that the town of New London, Conn., can use its eminent domain powers to seize the property of several unwilling homeowners to clear the way for an uncertain redevelopment plan involving a new facility for the Pfizer pharmaceutical giant.

The court has effectively expanded the definition of "public use" to mean "public benefit" and it has given government wide discretion in determining what that benefit is. If some city council somewhere says more tax revenue serves as a valid public benefit to seize property, then the Supreme Court says that's OK.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas plainly explained what the court did with its subtle shift in the definition of public use.

"This deferential shift in phraseology enables the court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"

And in her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor explained how the decision will likely play out, with a realistic recognition of the way things work between governments eager for tax revenue and those who might be willing to provide it.

"Any property can now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

The ruling exposes the thinking of the court's liberals - justices who are often thought to be on the side of civil liberties for the "little guy." It is now obvious that they are aligned with secular government powers rather than the inalienable rights of individuals.

And the consequences are bound to be profound. The United States and its adaptable, inventive and resilient economy were not built by government. They were built by individuals confidently armed with property rights. Take away those rights, and the foundation must surely crumble.