AP Photo by Steven Lee Miller Susette Kelo, a resident of Fort Trumbull area of New London, Conn., wipes tears from her eyes as she gives testimony to a combined meeting of the Judiciary and the Planning and Development Committees at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Thursday, July 28, 2005. Kelo is fighting the city over it's use of the state's eminent domain law in the seizure of her home. The committees are looking into a possible change of the state's eminent domain laws.

Private Property for Public
Use: Activists Speak Out
By Lesley C. Perez, 01.11.06

This month a milestone in the private property struggle will be fought as Carl and Joy Gamble face the City of Norwood to determine the fate of their Ohio home of over 35 years.

“This is the first state supreme court to consider eminent domain abuse since Kelo,” said Lisa Knepper . “It has a fantastic opportunity to rein in eminent domain abuse in Ohio where it has been rampant.”

The Kelo case, settled in June of 2005, set the example that government can take private property from one owner and give it to another in the name of economic development. This power, called eminent domain, has traditionally been used to build such things as highways and parks that are considered “public use.” Owners are given the fair market value in exchange.

Knepper, Director of Communication at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., stated that many of the eminent domain cases that had been on hold before the Kelo ruling began to move after its settlement.

“After the Kelo case, cities and developers felt empowered to take private property from one owner to another,” Knepper said.

As the Gambles struggle with the direct impact of the issue, others continue to voice their concerns.

“We are not free unless we have economic freedom,” said Pastor Nathan Atwood. “We do not have economic freedom if we do not have a sacred right to private property.”

Atwood is a strong defender of private property rights. He said the private property debate is fundamental to American freedom and feels the framers of the Constitution recognized this fact.

“To the founding fathers it was a lot larger issue than money,” Atwood said. “The marketplace was the arena in which you became developed and were tested as a person, and if I don’t have the ability to go out in the market place and sink or swim then I lose my freedom to succeed, and I lose my freedom to fail.”

In support of his argument, Atwood emphasized the connection between private property and the pursuit of happiness.

“If you study the development of language, you will see that consistently the founding fathers used the term ‘pursuit of happiness’ interchangeably with right to private property,” Atwood said.

He said there is strong historical evidence that private property is specifically what Jefferson meant when he used the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“You can cite specific letters of Washington and articles by Madison and the Continental Congress,” Atwood said. “‘Pursuit of happiness’ was code talk to right to private property.”

Minnesota realtor Jeffrey Cox sees the effect eminent domain could have on his business as well as his freedom.

“If government took over too much land there wouldn’t be too many houses to buy,” Cox said.

According to Cox, if government has freedom to take property as it wishes selling houses becomes pointless.

“You don’t have all your rights to your property,” Cox said. “You never really fully own your property. You have a deed, but the government can take it.”

Atwood said the concentration of government power that Cox is referring to is leading American society toward socialism.

“We are drifting into socialism more and more and more,” Atwood said. “People are more and more willing to turn over to the government authority and responsibility for their lives with the idea that what they’re getting in return is security.”

Atwood believes this is a false and detrimental security.

“In terms of the human soul, I think socialism is a cancer,” Atwood said. “I think it makes people passive.”

While some address the moral and philosophical issues, others turn to the technical jargon of the Constitution to resolve the problem. Regent University’s Constitutional Law Professor David Wagner said the issue is in interpretation.

According to Wagner, there are those who believe the phrase “public use” is an independent requirement and there are those who do not. If public use is an independent requirement, public use must be clearly identified in order for eminent domain to be enforced.

“If the ‘public use’ language was simply dropped you would have the clause the way the Kelo decision interprets it,” Wagner said. “It seems unlikely to me, not impossible but unlikely, that the framers would put in language that was just surplusage.”

Wagner also pointed out the issue of just compensation in the private property debate. Although owners may receive fair market value for their property, those against eminent domain abuse often argue that this is not sufficient.

Attorney Tara Trotter agrees that just compensation is not sufficient.

“Just compensation - I don’t know if it can ever really be just,” Trotter said.

She argues that money has a lot to do with the issue of eminent domain.

“I think that it automatically means that the interests and causes of people with money trample over those without money,” Trotter said.

Trotter said the government has monetary interest in the issue and often profit is put ahead of people. She said eminent domain is an instance of government having too much power which often leaves people without homes.

“Low-income housing is associated with a lot of undesirable conditions so it’s always a fight,” Trotter said. “The poor areas are the ones that the local government can look to [and] see [that] instead of being a drain they can be used to make money.”

Trotter has high expectations of government officials but realizes they will not always be met.

“Politicians’ personal integrity should resist but practically they’re going to look out for their interests,” Trotter said.

Many property rights activists share this sentiment. Although there are still many obstacles in the way, the fear is that government will have too much power.

“Even if we get past that hurdle and assume that fair market value will always equal replacement value that’s still a very heavy handed tool for government to have to be able to say ‘You have to move,’” Wagner said.

To Atwood, government power means more than just losing your home. “We’re going to lose our freedom.”

Tell A Friend