Schlafly Details Issues to Protect Private Property

In an article today, Phyllis Schlafly detailed that the 2005 Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London has riled normally apathetic American people and motivated them into asserting people power over the twin powers of government and money. Thirty states have passed laws or constitutional amendments to limit the effect of the Kelo ruling and provide protection against abusive takings of private property for other private purposes. In addition, eleven states will have ballot measures this year to protect private property rights.

Since the Kelo decision, more than 5,700 private properties have been threatened by or taken over by this power of eminent domain, a tremendous increase over the preceding five years. The Kelo decision made local officials and developers bolder and bolder in the taking of private property.

In July, the Ohio Supreme Court made a unanimous decision against a $125 million development project in a suburb of Cincinnati. The City of Norwood had used eminent domain takings in hopes to get $2 million a year in new taxes from the new property owners. The developer had already bulldozed every house on the site except three. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that "economic benefits alone," such as increased taxes, do not justify a taking of private property. The court stated that "Ohio has always considered the right of property to be a fundamental right," and that property rights are "Believed to be derived fundamentally from a higher authority and natural law . . ."

Schlafly relates that state legislation is needed in most states to prevent government from ruining private property while a dispute is going on. By the time Joy Gamble won her appeal, she had been barred from her property for over a year during which time the utilities were disconnected and the property vandalized and looted. State legislatures should be alert to draft their new laws against governmental takings to make clear that condemning authorities may not take possession of property until appeals are exhausted and the property is paid for, and that blight is defined as a danger to public health and safety (not mere underutilization or diversity of ownership). Read More