It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong - Andrew P. Napolitano [22]
In the United States, the power of eminent domain is recognized within the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause which states, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Jeffersonians did not believe in granting the government a power of eminent domain. Jefferson, and the soon-to-be anti-Federalists, argued that only by mutual consent, and fair bargain, but never against your will, could the government end up owning your property. Conversely, Alexander Hamilton, and the soon-to-be Federalists, believed the government had an absolute right to take any property it wished, just like the British kings at one time could and did.
James Madison, the great compromiser and principal author of the Constitution, persuaded the delegates to add the Just Compensation Clause. This was a most unfortunate compromise. While it required the government to pay fair compensation for whatever property it takes, and while—on paper—it required that property could only be taken for “public use,” it also permitted the government to take whatever it wants. Does the government exist to serve individuals, or are we here to provide for the government’s greater wealth?
19
First a Basketball Team, then a University
Norman Siegel represents Tuck-It-Away Associates (Tuck-It-Away), which is fighting the decision of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to condemn and seize its land in order to transfer the property to Columbia University, a private entity. Tuck-It-Away is a self-storage business located in the Manhattanville area of Harlem where Columbia University is planning to expand its campus. Since Columbia’s plans could make the property more valuable, the ESDC classifies this as a public benefit, which is one of the justifications for eminent domain. Siegel has said, “Basically they are saying if there is a Motel 6 and Hilton comes along and says they can make the property more valuable, then it [the Motel 6] can be declared blighted.”1 Siegel also said that many public advocates have begun saying the land in these cases should not be labeled “blighted,” but “coveted.”2
New York’s highest court upheld Columbia’s expansion plans, which allowed it to go through with its $6.3 billion expansion project. Tuck-It-Away still has a glimmer of hope, as it has petitioned to the United States Supreme Court. Siegel noted, “This is the first time ever that a private education institution can constitute a civic project,” and Nicholas Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away Inc., said, “It is truly a sad day for anyone who cares about the sanctity of private property rights.”3
I’m Sorry, but Taking Your Property Will Improve the Economy and Our Campaign Finances
Before the Weinstein and the Tuck-It-Away cases came before a court, one of the most egregious Supreme Court assaults on private property took place. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that a group of homeowners could have their property taken from them by the local city council and have it transferred to a private entity. The reasoning was that the new “shopping village” would attract a new corporate headquarters for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, thus creating many new jobs and added tax revenue, which would in turn benefit the public. The thinking here was that the public is better off having corporate giants take over individual homeowners’ land, because they could use the land better than the homeowners could. Must we now be slaves to our own land, making sure that we are using it in the most productive way for the entire community? Shouldn’t we be able to use our own land however we see fit?
20
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor