“Home-owning Americans have every right to be proud of their accomplishment: to diligently pay a mortgage or provide the upkeep on an inherited property in order to put a roof over their heads, and the heads of their families.  Never could I imagine city or state governments taking those homes to line the coffers of their general treasuries.

 

Yet, by the power of eminent domain, which is enumerated in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government can take land it deems necessary to the public good as long as the owner is rightfully compensated.  This might mean a state buys a strip of land along the highway to widen a road, or a town forces the sale of a lot so a new school may be built.

 

Until recently, we could argue whether each instance of the use of eminent domain was right or wrong, but there is no question that this system is now ripe for abuse.  In a June 23 ruling, the Supreme Court decided to expand the power of eminent domain by changing the definition of “public good” used in the Constitution.  The Supreme Court specifically ruled that the City of New London, Connecticut, could use the Constitutional clause to seize private homes and give the land to a large corporation for a private research facility.  The given reason?  The seized land had the potential for economic and aesthetic improvement.  The real motive of New London? The developed land would yield impressive tax revenues from the company buying it.

 

Instead of meaning a school or a road, the Court says that a state or local government can use eminent domain to enhance tax revenues.  Where today stands a family farm or a neighborhood of homes, tomorrow a shopping center or a condominium complex could cast a long shadow.

 

Local governments who view eminent domain as a cash cow are absolutely in the wrong. 

 

The five-to-four decision spurred the House of Representatives to respond, because personal property rights are among the most sacred rights granted to U.S. citizens.  The homes and farms I mentioned depend on reasonable legal protections.  We can never allow the private use and ownership of land to become subject to the whims of government.

 

This month, I voted with an overwhelming majority of my colleagues to withhold federal
economic development funds from states and municipalities who use the power of eminent domain to convey land from one private owner to another.  These forced sales and takings undermine that dream of homeownership to which so many Americans aspire.  Public government and private entities should not be allowed to conspire against property owners this way, under any circumstances.  Nor should government become a means for private developers to acquire land which the rightful owner would otherwise not sell.

 

By punishing governments that get greedy and seek to boost revenues in the wake of the ruling, we send the strong message that our tolerance for abuse is low.  In addition, it is appropriate that Congress is using economic development dollars to do the punishing.  A municipality that chooses to aggressively seize private lands for private purposes should not also reap the reward of federal taxpayer dollars.

 

State and local governments should not be in the real estate business.  The ramifications for property owners could be dire, and every American should be concerned.  With the swift action of the Senate and the signature of the president, we can prevent a raid on the homes of American citizens in the short term.  In the long term, however, a solution must be found in law that upholds the intent of our Founders and the spirit of the Constitution.

 

I am sure it is only a matter of time until a similar case comes before the Supreme Court.  It is my hope that the ruling would next time come down on the side of property owners.  Our homes should be inviolate.  They should have every protection under law.  It is clear we are going to have to fight to get that right back.”