How safe is the ideal of private property rights in America? We may soon going to find out.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case, Kelo v. New London, in which the future of property rights is at stake. It involves seven homeowners in New London, Conn., who were among 70 evicted when the city ordered them off their land to make room for a private development. The city used its power of eminent domain to take the land, arguing that the new development would better serve the "public interest."

The Kelo in the Lawsuit is homeowner Susette Kelo, who bought a dilapidated home and, through years of toil and expense, turned it into a neighborhood showplace. She has been ordered out of her home. Only a court order has kept a handful of property owners on their properties until the case is settled.

And once again, the question arises: Should the government be able to use its power of eminent domain to seize property from one private party, so as to transfer it to another private party?

In the New London situation, city officials made the case for eminent domain by stating the development would create jobs and generate more tax dollars for government. That, they said, is how the public interest is better served.

We are reminded of a point of view expressed by philosopher/author Ayn Rand: "The idea that 'the public interest' supercedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning - that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

That is a powerful indictment of a government's inclination to favor one class of individual over another, and to do what it wants to generate more money for its own operations.

Advertisement

The power of eminent domain was used more than 10,000 times from 1998 to 2002 in 41 of the 50 states, and it continues to be used to this day. Often the case for using this legal maneuver is justified. Sometimes it's not.

If the Supreme Court sides with the city in the Kelo v. New London case, it can be safely assumed that no individual's home or business is secure from government seizure.

That is not only unfair, it is un-American.

Feb. 25, 2005