Court's ruling paves way to ruin

JOE SOUCHERAY
(ST. Paul Pioneer Press)


The Supreme Court went nuts the other day. The heat got to them. There is no other way to look at it. Forget about gay marriage and prayer in the schools and God's mention in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those are minor affairs compared to the results of the complete breakdown of the land's highest court.

They made a ruling that says cities can take your property and turn it over to private developers. This is the so-called issue of eminent domain. In the old days, when we were getting goods to market with an ox cart or poling a barge along a canal, the "taking clause'' meant that a community had to come together once in a while and decide to sacrifice the south 40 acres of Old Man Jesperson's farm so that a road could be built for all to use, while also fairly compensating Jesperson.

That's the word the Fifth Amendment features: use.

So what did the Supreme Court justices rule by a 5-4 margin? Well, they decided that a city or government entity's ability to increase revenue is a public use. In other words, if a developer can sweet talk the City Council or county commissioners into the belief that the Acme Resort Corporation can generate more taxes than that row of Craftsman bungalows on Fifth Street, then by all means, have at it. Knock those people out of their homes. Bulldoze those houses and put up the new development.

Oh, and pay them just compensation? You can't come up with a figure. There is no amount of money to accommodate the new belief that the sanctity of the government is now elevated above the sanctity of your home.

I defy anybody reading this to tell me I have misinterpreted the Supreme Court's most progressive thinkers, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. I mean progressive in the most ominous way.

The state's ability to generate revenue is now considered a public use under the court's newest interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.

Dissenting were Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

I don't know about you, but I took a walk around my property after I read this ruling and I felt a pit in my stomach. Nothing is safe.

Nothing.

And if your attitude on this one is, "Oh, well, it will never affect me,'' or, "Oh, well, life will go on,'' then you could be the next Wilhemina Dery.

Dery was among a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who were faced with losing property after the Pfizer pharmaceutical company began discussing with the city plans for a $300 million waterfront research facility. The plans also include a hotel and a health club. Dery and her neighbors do not live in a blighted neighborhood, but rather an antiquated one of Victorian-style homes and shops.

The neighbors sued and the case landed at the Supreme Court, where the majority essentially erased the concept of private property, which is a bedrock of this republic.

O'Connor, writing for the minority, argued that the decision will disproportionately benefit people with influence and power in the political process. She is absolutely correct.

Here is the important thing to understand, especially if you are of a "progressive'' mind and have counted on the government to pave over life's bumps and ruts. You are going to get paved over in the new process.

O'Connor warned that rich people would buy up the property of poor people and create developments that only rich people could possibly use.

And what makes this horrible prospect possible is the unbelievably flawed ruling that a city's ability to make money is more important than your right to your home.

If you are out in your back yard today and you hear a chattering over your rooftop, look up. It might be the arrival of the black helicopter — the black helicopter of myth and conspiracy.

Or, worse, it might be a developer with big plans.