Isn't That Where Grandma Used To Live? In the Kelo Vs. The City of New London case, the Supreme Court geezers voted 5-4 to turn property rights in this country on its head. Conservatives along with Liberals are all condemning the ruling. It gives municipalities pretty much cart-blanche in seizing property from anyone for any reason, as long as it increases the tax base. That is all that is required to satisfy the new interpretation of “public good”. The Constitution does allow governments to sieze property for public works as long as the owner is paid the fair market value. However, until the Kelo decision this usually meant condemning homes to make way for public roads, parks or revitalizing severely blighted and dilapidated areas. The five Supreme Court In-Justices on the property rights hall of shame are Bryer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souder. Interestingly, it is the most liberal members of the court that have sided with big business interests and ruled against the little guy. Now if Wall-Mart wants to build on Granny’s land that she has lived on most of her life they have only to convince the city council that they can bring more taxes to town than little old Granny. The Supreme Court 5 has just said to her that she can take a hike to the nearest old folks home. Since the Supremes have defined “public good” as bringing in more tax money what will become of churches or properties owned by charities? Does this mean that the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson can show up to the Salt Lake LDS Temple and have it torn down for a Wall-Mart Super Center? Knowing Rocky Anderson I wouldn’t put it past him. On the flip side environmentalists shouldn’t be too happy either. Wetlands and nature preserves don’t bring in as much tax money as a coal mine, or oil drilling. Trees don’t bring in tax revenue until they are cut down. So a living tree does not represent the “public good” according to the clueless black robed ones on the Supreme Court. Luckily many municipalities in the country are making laws protecting private property. They are enacting ordinances and laws that make it more difficult for governments to take land from one private owner to give to another. This is a good thing, however powerful interests that covet your land will bring these cases back to the Supreme Court again. Hopefully it will take a while and those responsible for this travesty will be retired and replaced. This is why President Bush needs to appoint decent non-activist judges that respect property rights and the Constitution.