Monday night in MacMillan 117, you can hear a woman tell a personal story that reads like a movie script, but with more. It has not just intrigue, action, love, ligitation and heartbreak, but a real, profound effect on all of our lives.
I won't spoil her personal story by telling it here, but I will discuss one part of it. That is the part where her case reaches the Supreme Court and, in my opinion, results in the fundamental undermining of a fundamental basis of our nation: private property rights.
Susette Kelo and some of her neighbors fought for five years to keep their own city's government from taking their homes. They lived in the depressed - though not blighted - neighborhood of Fort Trumbull, and their well-maintained working-class homes stood in the way when New London decided to plan a massive redevelopment effort in the neighborhood.
Their land would not be turned into a public park, school, or hospital, which are examples of generally accepted uses of eminent domain. Instead, it was to be handed over to private developers and turned into office space, retail space, more expensive housing and a marina. What was the "public use" required by the Constitution to make this taking acceptable? That the new uses of the land would result in higher tax revenues for the city. The Supreme Court found that this justification sufficed.
There are a lot of people aligned on the losing side of this case. Perhaps most interestingly, libertarians and liberals are joining hands in protest. Libertarians despise the decision for obvious enough reasons: They are for absolute individual freedom, and government taking private land, let alone giving it to another private party, is absolutely antithetical to their core beliefs.
Some have gone so far as to pursue building the Lost Liberty Hotel in New Hampshire as a monument to the loss of property rights. Lovers of all things ironic should love this, because the plans involve having the city of Weare take the boyhood home of Justice David Souter in order to make room for the hotel. The hotel will result in higher tax revenues and is thus legal according to Kelo v. New London.
Joining libertarians in opposing the decision are liberals, or more specifically all concerned about the rights of the disadvantaged. This decision has left the property of no poor American safe from any middle-class American, no middle-class American safe from any upper-class American, no upper-class American safe from Donald Trump - Donald Trump's property isn't safe from Bill Gates. Ostensibly, so long as one can show a plan to increase tax revenues, they can have the government take the land from whoever owns it and give it to them.
How far might it go? One can peruse post-Kelo Congressional testimony on eminent domain and find ultra-conservative Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., referring to a case near his district where $700,000 homes were taken for redevelopment. This issue is not simply about property rights or about the rights of the disadvantaged. It is about the fundamental ability to prevent the further concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands, and the further marginalization of those who already have relatively little.
I'm quite sure of my stance on this issue - and you should be sure of my stance, too, after reading this. Nevertheless, we are all obligated to expose ourselves to the arguments of the opposition. We cannot claim to be right or to know what is best unless we have heard everything else. If we do, our actions may be paving the road to hell with good intentions. So, in good spirit, bring it on, Daniel Krisch and city of New London. Monday night will present a fantastic opportunity to get into the issue, and is your chance to prove me wrong.
That idea - seeking out different, even unattractive ideas - has been the strongest theme of my college career. Now that it is over, including two years as a columnist, I know it has been rewarding. There is never a better time to challenge one's beliefs than in college, and there is no easier way to make oneself think. Thanks, Brown - I learned something!
Rob Sand '05.5, over, and out.
