THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law.  What ruling?  Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country. [full text of ruling]

Background.  The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain.  It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it.  The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law.  The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it.  The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population.  As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use. 

The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use.  Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use.  This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed.  This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut.  As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision  renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation. 

Bottom line:  If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed.  You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians.

Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision.  In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics:  There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend. 

First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda.  Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home.  That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage.  Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe.  Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property.  Belinda says no.  She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased.  So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol to talk to some politicians.  He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him.  Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes.  Belinda has no way to stop this action.  The city will have to pay Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself.  Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place.  It was her property, and she wanted to keep it.  Now it can be taken ... just like that.

Another example.  This time we'll use me.  About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains.  It's a lot in a mountain resort community.  Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so.  At present it is not my intention to build a home.  I bought the lot as an investment.   Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low.  Along comes a developer.  He wants to build a home on my lot.  I tell him the lot is not for sale.  He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain.  He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land.  If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land.  The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the land and turn it over.  Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed.

Now take the situation in New London.  This is the case the court was considering.  The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents.  The homes are old, but very well kept.  One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's.  They celebrated their wedding in that home.  They raised their children in that home.  They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home.  Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center.  This is America.  This shouldn't happen in America.  That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a new development would pay more in property taxes.  

There are also small businesses located on this tract of land.  They're history.  The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property.

No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property.  The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court.  That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers. 

I'm not through ranting.  Read on.

Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point?  If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hopes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit?  I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell, the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price.  I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not?  Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and start the eminent domain process.   This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value.  The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate.

Another element of the New London case.  These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront.  Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property.  This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company.  Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures.   This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners.   I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project.

There's another element I want to add to this rant.  I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the  war against individualism.  Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is.  How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality" without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about?

The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals.  Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around.  When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights.  Among those rights would be the right to property.   Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights.  They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights."  Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights.  People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged. 

Now ... is there a bright side?  Is there anything good in the ruling?  Yes, there is, and this is where you come in.  Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it.  They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures.  There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law.  Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida.  If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism.  Start the movement now.  Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights. 

The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights.  Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.

What can you do? Visit Institute For Justice & the Castle Coalition. There is also a blog that focuses on eminent domain issues.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?

Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin draws a comparison between American armed forces and Nazis, Stalin's murderers and Pol Pots butchers, and Democrats are silent.  Then along comes Karl Rove.  Now bear in mind here that Democrats probably hate Karl Rove more than any other living breathing human being. They believe Rove the man to be solely responsible for their electoral loss in 2000 and again in 2004.  So Karl Rove speaks to the Conservative Party of New York and has something to say about how liberals reacted to 9/11.  Rove said "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Oh my!  Were the Democrats upset!

The same cast of characters that had nothing to say about Durbin's remarks sure had a lot to say about Karl Rove. 

San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader said that Republican charges that Democrats were undermining the war on terror with their criticism of administration policies amounted to an act of desperation.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said that "Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign, I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks."

Hillary had to weigh in of course:  "I would hope that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the president's inner circle."

Other Democrats called Rove's remarks "Vulgar and nauseating."

Bear in mind ... these are the same Democrats who had nothing to say about Durbin's comparison of American men and women in uniform to Nazis.  But let someone say that liberals lack the will to fight to fight terrorism .. and all hell breaks loose. 

By the way .. .Rove had it about right.  And he wasn't through with his slam on the left.  He also had something to say about Dick Durbin.  "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Atta boy, Karl.

Rove also denounced Sen. Dick Durbin's comments comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes. He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting U.S. troops in greater danger. The Illinois Democrat has since apologized for the remarks. (not)

"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

HEATHER'S CORNER

More offerings from Heather Jackson, the Boortz Show intern.  Now bear in mind that both Royal and Belinda are free to make their offerings to Nealz Nuze ... but apparently chose not to do so.  Maybe they'll get some encouragement from Heather.

What is our government wasting time on this week?

Last week the Senate apologized to the victims of lynchings and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation. That's right, they just said "I'm sorry" but didn't actually pass a bill to make sure it never happened again. While I didn't see this as a common problem, I assumed it would fall under the heading of oh, say, murder maybe??? Isn't that illegal anyway? Lynching may also fall under the 'hate-crime' title. Of course lynching people is illegal! Thanks for wasting our time on that no-brainer.

So this week we revisit a topic that has been brought up countless times in my life time: Should we be allowed to burn our country's flag?

A symbol does not replace the meaning of an event or philosophy. It is merely a place holder. It is something to help you remember or something to show what you stand for. The flag represents America, freedom and patriotism, the flag is NOT America, our freedoms or our patriotism. It is just the cover of the book. The former California Senator, S.I. Hayakawa once said, "The map is not the territory, the flag is not the nation."

We are allowed to own a flag. Therefore, it is our property (unless of course, it were to fall under eminent domain which the Supreme court passed yesterday ). The government should not be able to say you can't destroy your property in whichever way you see fit. Of course, just make sure not to hurt anyone in the process.

The House of Representatives believes that they should be able to say you can't destroy a flag. We shall see how the Senate reacts. The 1^st Amendment allows us freedom of expression and if you feel the need to express yourself by destroying your own property, by all means do it. At least you didn't take it out on someone else.

I suggest to you that, We the People, rely on our Constitution. Stop trying to make it a "living & breathing" document that holds no REAL value and can be changed on the whim of black robed kings.

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

In these times, everyone is concerned with security. Lucky for us, this low-tech car alarm is only a trip to the pound away. View the entire Redneck Scrap Book.

Heather's Reading Assignments:

If this dog had hands (wmv file), he'd grab you a beer.

Spyin' on Wacko Jacko

Pretty Biased Sycophants...

867-5309 no longer had to be your ... het-hemmm ... phone number.

Save the Males!!! One man that has lost his scruples!

When Idol goes net... do YOU dare?

AND A FEW READING ASSIGNMENT FROM THE TALKMASTER

The Wall Street Journal's take on the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling.

And now for George Will's opinions on the Supreme Court ruling. Will says the question is: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes.

So ... what's wrong with questioning someone's patriotism if, in fact, their patriotism is in question?

My friends in Georgia would like for you to become aware of Herman Cain.  Read this column.  You'll be impressed.

Morning Sickness: Lightning strikes man carrying cross in funeral procession.

WHAT THE HECK ARE THOSE POINTY HAND THINGS?
These are links to each individual story on the Nuze, p-links for the geeks out there. Plus, they work today and they'll work tomorrow. Now you can easily discuss/debate/rip apart the Nuze without worrying about the links going bad. Enjoy!

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

NEAL'S FANS GET TOGETHER
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:

• Talkmaster Yahoo Group
• Meet Boortz fans in your area
• alt.fan.neal.boortz newsgroup (note, you're going to have to figure out newsgroups all on your own)

NEALZ LINKS FOR NUZE The Atlanta Journal-Constitution World Net Daily NewsMax Wall Street Journal opinions Washington Times Washington Post Real Clear Politics Media Research Center Naples Daily News The Drudge Report The Associated Press SF Gate townhall.com

NEALZ AUDIO ARCHIVES Interview with Peter Jennings 1/26 Howard Dean Alarm System Neal talks with Ludacris Boo Got Shot LISTENER PARTICIPATION Boortztionary Redneck Scrap Book Your embarassing gas passing stories The House episode dealing with abortion CARTOON INDEX Check here for a list of cartoons that have appeared on Nealz Nuze.

Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!