Eminent domain violates fundamental rights

By Patrick Hogan
Collegian Editor
March 1, 2006

In a recent article, USA Today reported on the plight of Norwood, Ohio resident Joe Horney. Horney had bought a house in this Cincinnati neighborhood for $63,900 in 1991. He spent the last decade improving and renovating the property. Now a developer wants to tear down his block to build condos and retail property, and they’ve got the city behind them. Everyone must sell and head out or the government will forcibly evict him or her. Horney is outraged and has fought the decision every step of the way.

But wait. They’ve got $270,000 sitting in a bank account, waiting for Horney as soon as he drops his legal battle and acquiesces to the government’s ruling. That’s more than four times what he paid for the house. I may not know a lot about real estate, but I think many people would look at that and pronounce it to be a fair deal.

But it is not a fair deal. It doesn’t even come close to being fair. It is based on an unfortunate presumption that has evolved in a society that has descended into the dregs of capitalism. It is the presumption that you can give anything and give it a monetary value.

The development corporation may be able to give Horney $270,000, but can they give him back the hours he spent fixing the house? Will they be able be able to speed up the process in which he becomes acclimated to a new home and neighborhood? Will they be able to compensate for all of the memories that now stain the house—memories that will come apart at the seams as the house is bulldozed in place of a bland corporate vision of America.

The idea that people can be re-located from their homes simply by giving them enough money to compensate for their old one is ridiculous. The old maxim that money cannot buy happiness is still true, and applies to other intangibles as well.

Shame on the Supreme Court for approving of this questionable process in the case of Kelo vs. New London. One of the reasons the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created was to prevent the formation of a government with the ability to abuse individual rights in this fashion. As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent, the fifth amendment clearly states that no one should have his or her property taken from him or her without just compensation, and in this case, there is no possible just compensation. Our founding fathers would most likely find the entire matter of eminent domain to be criminal.

One of the defenses of eminent domain (one you mostly likely will find on this very page) is that it serves the needs of the greater community. In the case of Joe Horney, the city justified its decision to take the property in that it would bring more money and jobs to a community that has struggled economically.

I don’t think anyone would ever pronounce his or herself to be against improving the community, but not at the cost of a person’s individual rights. You cannot justify this evil by pointing at the good that will result.

My only solace on this issue is that the court was very narrowly divided, with the vote being 5-4, splitting the court clearly with judges that have a reputation of conservatism like Scalia and Thomas in strong opposition. I can only hope that the recent addition of John Roberts and Samuel Alito will allow the court to undo some of the damage its predecessors have wrought.

hoganp1@lasalle.edu