Today's HoB entry was supposed to be a celebration of the newest release (and some recent prior releases) by Mark Knopfler, the former front-man for Dire Straits. However, that will have to be shelved in favor of a discussion of today's issuance by the Supreme Court of their opinion in KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL. The case involves some homeowners in a working-class neighborhood who were resisting attempts by the city of New London, CT, in its desire to sieze their houses for private use. While all cases heard by the Supreme Court are of significance (hence their being heard by the most sovereign court in the US), today's decision has -- unfortunately -- serious, far-reaching consequences.
Essentially, the opinion permits local towns and municipalities, in the name of community enhancement, to appropriate (read: sieze) houses and other forms of property in order to facilitate expansion and community renewal for not only public use but for private and/or corporate expansion. What this means -- to the layperson -- is that if you own a house that is in the way of a town's or city's geographic building plans -- not merely for a new highway or electric plant, but for that of a new corporate structure/office building, the town has the legal right, thanks to today's decision, to sieze your property (reimbursing you for the value of said property) and bulldoze your house to make way for construction, even if said construction is for private, non-public use.
If that doesn't frighten you or at least make you wonder if the nine members of the Supreme Court have lost their collective minds, then I suspect you're either naive or not quite processing the danger inherent as a result of today's decision.
In its most basic form, today's decision strengthens and legitimizes the power of the state over the individual, and means that your most valued property -- your house -- is no longer quite your own. In years past, and in movies (from "The Grapes of Wrath" to Jean-Claude Van Damme's "Nowhere to Run"), the notion of the government bullying a property owner into relinquishing ownership of their house has been played and re-played to death. But in years past, much of that expansion has involved public construction: roads/highways, infrastructure, power generators, nuclear plants, and even public parks. Today's decision, however, turns the notion of the siezure of personal property for public use on its ear by further allowing the state (or the town) to delete a house or other edifice merely to pave the way for more commerce (ie an office/corporate structure) which in turn allows the state/town to improve itself from the inside out -- or from the ground up. The problem here -- and thanks to conspiracy theorists and movies produced since the Watergate scandal of the 1970's -- is that the decision hands control and discretion to towns and states by suggesting that local officials are entitled (and qualified) to make improvements to their town (even if said improvements do not eliminate eyesores, ie a tiny shack in the middle of a luxurious, wealthy neighborhood) with little or no resistance.
Essentially, the opinion permits local towns and municipalities, in the name of community enhancement, to appropriate (read: sieze) houses and other forms of property in order to facilitate expansion and community renewal for not only public use but for private and/or corporate expansion. What this means -- to the layperson -- is that if you own a house that is in the way of a town's or city's geographic building plans -- not merely for a new highway or electric plant, but for that of a new corporate structure/office building, the town has the legal right, thanks to today's decision, to sieze your property (reimbursing you for the value of said property) and bulldoze your house to make way for construction, even if said construction is for private, non-public use.
If that doesn't frighten you or at least make you wonder if the nine members of the Supreme Court have lost their collective minds, then I suspect you're either naive or not quite processing the danger inherent as a result of today's decision.
In its most basic form, today's decision strengthens and legitimizes the power of the state over the individual, and means that your most valued property -- your house -- is no longer quite your own. In years past, and in movies (from "The Grapes of Wrath" to Jean-Claude Van Damme's "Nowhere to Run"), the notion of the government bullying a property owner into relinquishing ownership of their house has been played and re-played to death. But in years past, much of that expansion has involved public construction: roads/highways, infrastructure, power generators, nuclear plants, and even public parks. Today's decision, however, turns the notion of the siezure of personal property for public use on its ear by further allowing the state (or the town) to delete a house or other edifice merely to pave the way for more commerce (ie an office/corporate structure) which in turn allows the state/town to improve itself from the inside out -- or from the ground up. The problem here -- and thanks to conspiracy theorists and movies produced since the Watergate scandal of the 1970's -- is that the decision hands control and discretion to towns and states by suggesting that local officials are entitled (and qualified) to make improvements to their town (even if said improvements do not eliminate eyesores, ie a tiny shack in the middle of a luxurious, wealthy neighborhood) with little or no resistance.
This, in layman's terms, is disturbing. The Fifth Amendment, which largely has served as the main deterrent to states and towns controlling its residents and their property, basically just got shredded.
The language of the Fifth Amendment, for those who don't have a handy copy of the Constitution, is as follows:
Article [V.]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 offence 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.
The Fifth Amendment, as part of The Bill of Rights, was ratified between 1789 and 1791 (it was ratified on a state-by-state basis). So a 200-plus-year-old protection of property was just wadded up and discarded like a piece of junk mail.
The notion of the siezure of property which blights the community isn't new; this type of siezure has been present communities since the 1950's. Even New York City is not immune from this treatment; in the name of expansion, the City has steamrolled hundreds of lots in the name of public-minded construction. The example, and the theory behind this concept, is that a tiny two-room shack in the middle of Times Square could (and should) be better utilized and, therefore, is siezed, leveled and deleted to make way for an office building or hotel which fosters thousands of jobs, commerce, revenue for the City, and therefore serves a public need. Hence the legitimacy when litmus-tested against the confines of the Fifth Amendment.
However, the very nature of "public use" was today redefined. According to the Supreme Court, even if the siezed land is not opened up for de-facto public use, a city/town/state can, via a duly-filed economic development plan, demonstrate that a private entity planning a private-use structure still can qualify as having public benefit.
In plain english, today's decision marks a significant eroding of personal freedom, and while I am not a card-carrying, liberal-minded trumpeter of the ACLU, today's decision will -- without question -- have disturbing, far-reaching implications for years to come.
Next thing you know, the Supreme Court will tell us we don't really own the music contained on the CD's we have purchased, and transferring same to computers, portable digital music players, and even listening to them in public places is no longer legal.
As Mark Knopfler sings on his new release: "Boom, like that."
The notion of the siezure of property which blights the community isn't new; this type of siezure has been present communities since the 1950's. Even New York City is not immune from this treatment; in the name of expansion, the City has steamrolled hundreds of lots in the name of public-minded construction. The example, and the theory behind this concept, is that a tiny two-room shack in the middle of Times Square could (and should) be better utilized and, therefore, is siezed, leveled and deleted to make way for an office building or hotel which fosters thousands of jobs, commerce, revenue for the City, and therefore serves a public need. Hence the legitimacy when litmus-tested against the confines of the Fifth Amendment.
However, the very nature of "public use" was today redefined. According to the Supreme Court, even if the siezed land is not opened up for de-facto public use, a city/town/state can, via a duly-filed economic development plan, demonstrate that a private entity planning a private-use structure still can qualify as having public benefit.
In plain english, today's decision marks a significant eroding of personal freedom, and while I am not a card-carrying, liberal-minded trumpeter of the ACLU, today's decision will -- without question -- have disturbing, far-reaching implications for years to come.
Next thing you know, the Supreme Court will tell us we don't really own the music contained on the CD's we have purchased, and transferring same to computers, portable digital music players, and even listening to them in public places is no longer legal.
As Mark Knopfler sings on his new release: "Boom, like that."
No comments:
Post a Comment