"Eminent Domain"

The major flap-doodle over here right now is a recent decision by the Supreme Court in a case involving a municipality's use of the power of eminent domain. That is a legal concept whereby governments (federal, state, city or local) may appropriate private property for the purposes of the public use. A typical examples of its use is when a highway is to be built, and the plan calls for the road to go through private property. In theory those whose private property is to be seized are to be offered "just compensation" for the property.

The case that came before the United States Supreme Court involve the town of New London, Connecticut, which attempted to invoke eminent domain to secure residential property so commercial property could replace it. This is quite different from the typical use of eminent domain -- typically the property is directly used for the public good: roads, hospitals, schools. Here the property was to be transferred from one private owner -- a handful of homeowners -- and turned over to a private development corporation.

The homeowners sued, claiming this was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Ammendment, which has what's known as the "Takings Clause":

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Lawyers for the homeowners argued that since the property was to be taken and turned over to a private development concern, the use of emiment domain in this case violated the "public use" qualifier of the Fifth Ammendment "Takings" clause. Lawyers for the City of New London argued that conversion of the property from residential property into commercial property would provide greater tax receipts, which would be for the greater "public use."

The case wound its way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled -- in a 5-4 vote -- in favor of the City of New London. The precedent is now set: municipalities may invoke eminent domain to confiscate private property and turn it over to other private concerns if the resulting tax receipts are greater.

The blog chatter on this topic is quite intense, and there are some very thoughtful and scholarly things being written about case law and precedent. Apparently, case law in the area of eminent domain has been drifting in this direction for about a hundred years now. There's also all sorts of talk about who will benefit from this politically. Some say the Democrats, because on the surface this looks like siding with "big business" (Pfizer, in this case -- the property would be for a Pfizer building). The problem with this is that the five most liberal justices voted for this. Some say the Republicans will benefit because this case helps illustrate the problem of the judiciary that abuses its power.

I'm not so sure either will benefit. I'm starting to wonder if both won't get hurt, but in a very indirect way.

Most people have lost pretty much all confidence in the voting process being effective at the local government level. Turnout is often extremely low, and most who do vote do so on name recognition only, rather than the issues. That means that the best-funded candidates typically win at the local level, and that funding comes from -- most often -- land developers. In other words, local politicians are essentially a bought-and-paid-for bunch.

Note: Back in Reston, Virginia, where I used to live. The town of Reston had strict rules about the cutting down of trees. Anything over 4" in diameter required a permit. Only spot-cutting could be done, not clear-cutting. Homeowners did not have sovereign rights over the trees on
their own properties. (The act of buying a house in Reston required the signing of covenant. Don't like the covenant? Don't live in Reston.) But, when Oracle looked to build a new commercial building in Reston, they were given authorization to clear-cut a five acre expanse of land, which up to that point had been virtually unheard of. Why were they given this dispensation? Money. Plain and simple. Hence the lack of any confidence in local government treating the individual with any degree of justice.

Having lost confidence in the local government, people placed their trust in the courts, thinking (wrongly) that the courts would at least try to be just. What this court ruling has done -- along with hundreds of others like it -- has been to undermine people's trust in the courts.

We can't trust the elected officials and we can't trust the courts.

We have nowhere else to go.

People do not like feeling like they have no recourse. It plays to a basic insecurity in our hearts.

I'm not exactly sure how this will manifest itself in terms of damage to the two political parties. Probably through increasingly low voter turnout. Unfortunately all that does is empower the incumbant further.

This write-up has nothing to do with religion or meta-physics. And it's not so much the political aspect of this I'm focusing on. I do think there's a fundamental aspect of human nature at play at the core of this, and to the best of my knowledge it's not been written about.