New at Reason

"Fight back against the Kelo decision? Protect my property rights? Sounds great!" In a feature from reason's August/September issue Ilya Somin explains why that might not be the right way to think about anti-Kelo activism.

Comments

Aresen | August 6, 2007, 9:02am | #

Once again, reform is stifled by special interest groups; no news there.

Worse, because of the Kelo precedent, there is unlikely to be another case that comes to the Supreme Court and arouses similar outrage.

Micheal Pack | August 6, 2007, 9:24am | #

These laws are written by attorneys,who as usual,talk alot and say very little.

joe | August 6, 2007, 10:31am | #

What is a "Kelo-type taking," as Somin uses the term? An economic development taking? Any taking that involves private ownership, or just the taking of homes? One that achieves a public purpose that she, personally, deems an inadequate justification for taking property?

Somin simply assumes that the passage of a law in response to Kelo that doesn't also eliminate other classes of takings is at odd with the public's opposition to the takings in the Kelo case. Perhaps another explanation is that the public opposition to the New London takings - taking occupied homes in good condition for the purpose of replacing them with more lucrative land uses - does not in fact demonstrate that the public is opposed to redevelopment projects as a whole.

Alan Vanneman | August 6, 2007, 10:40am | #

The legislative process is fraught with compromise, log-rolling, trade-offs, etc. So what? In the past, it was the liberals who usually pushed for an almighty and all-wise judiciary, that would force virtue on the people. Now libertarians seem to be sliding in the same direction.

Robert | August 6, 2007, 11:45am | #

I'll take it any way I can get it, whether at the point of a gavel, pen, or gun.

nebby | August 6, 2007, 12:11pm | #

A kelo type taking is when you take one person's private property and give it to another private entity. The earlier cases carved out exceptions for blight and political pandering to minorities. Kelo pushed it to where your house is always at peril to a guy with more money.

What needs to happen is to outlaw all takings of land where the new owner is not a government entity providing a public service that is not offered by any private entities. Take my house for a new street is one thing, to take it to build a McDonalds is entirely different.

joe | August 6, 2007, 2:05pm | #

If that is the definition, nebby, than the public doesn't not oppose all Kelo-type takings, and Somin's theory that the reforms do not match the public's desires is wrong.

nebby | August 6, 2007, 6:09pm | #

Ok Joe,

I am willing to learn. What forced takings for private profit do you have evidence showing a majority of public approval for?

If you cite a blight case, we need to be talking about a case where there was no blight, but the public approved anyway.

Oh, I will make the allowance for sport teams. I agree that the public is giddy for those. So, any law would need to exempt actual blight and the latest ballpark.

Any others?

Bob | August 6, 2007, 11:16pm | #

All here including the author are missing the true meaning of Kelo because of the agenda media and silent politicians. Every report states that people's private property was taken and given to evil developers. The poor against the rich and/or well connected.

The real meaning of Kelo is, since our predecessors allowed property tax, there is no such thing as private property. All property is owned by the taxing authority or authorities. Your tax payments are the rent you pay to live on 'your property'. Do not pay the taxes and see how long you are allowed to stay on 'your property'.

Kelo was a situation where the taxing authority canceled the rent privilege from one tenant so a developer could make improvements on the property so they could rent it to a new tenant for a higher price.

The developer made a one time profit. The city will receive more money to spend on pet projects and/or to buy votes for as long as they have a tenant.

The developer gets the condemnation while the politicians smile all the way to the bank and the sheeple don't have a clue what happened.

Rick Linhart | August 7, 2007, 7:55pm | #

On the other hand I was an expert witness at the county board of tax revision, due to a neighborhood being labled as blighted. My position was that parts of Lakewood,Ohio (refer to 60 minutes segment on CBS) now carry a stigma as a blighted suburb and hence property values have been lowered.

The developer and political proponents (mayor too )were long gone after the local election.

But the stigma remains