End Eminent Domain Abuse Through Cultural Pressure
Today marks the 9th anniversary of the Supreme Court's awful Kelo decision -- giving government officials the power to bulldoze a neighborhood for the benefit of a multibillion-dollar corporation.
In the words of dissenting Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor about the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo:
The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.
My good friends, Ted Balaker and Courtney Balaker, are making a film in collaboration with the Institute for Justice about Suzette Kelo's struggle with New London, Connecticut, and ultimately, with the Supreme Court, to keep her pink house.
Here's their USA Today op-ed on Kelo and eminent domain abuse and how they think culture -- a movie about this -- can help bring this to the public's attention and possibly help stop eminent domain abuse:
The Constitution once limited how governments could use eminent domain, but post-Kelo, that's no longer the case. Officials routinely lock arms with corporations or billionaires to forcibly transfer property from one private owner to another, not for public use, but for private gain.The powerful bullying the powerless -- that's the opposite of inclusion. And how about diversity? Eminent domain abuse typically strikes poor and minority communities. Not at all compassionate, but it encapsulates the Barclays Center's dodgy backstory, in which officials flattened a neighborhood that was more diverse than powerful to erect a massive complex that has enriched developers and the NBA franchise that calls the facility home.
How to tame the ugly spirit of eminent domain abuse and cronyism? We suggest turning to a force mightier than politics: culture. We are producing a feature film based on Kelo's historic saga, and we hope to achieve some of the impact garnered by Erin Brockovich, another underdog film about a real-life working-class woman.
Erin Brockovich showed how culture can elevate otherwise obscure issues to drive reform. Cultural depictions played an important role in the recent shift in public support for same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, and Kelo's courageous struggle could likewise help viewers understand the human cost of eminent domain abuse.
After all, her story already reads like a feature film. The recently divorced nurse was on her own for the first time in her life and fell in love with a rundown little house overlooking a river in New London, Conn., She fixed it up with her own hands and painted it pink. Little did she know that power brokers from city hall to the governor's mansion were bent on seizing her little pink house and the homes of her neighbors so that Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, could enhance its corporate facilities. City officials promised more tax revenue and Pfizer executives looked forward to high-end housing and other perks. (Pfizer had high hopes for a soon-to-be-released drug called Viagra.)
Nine years after being taken from her, the land where Kelo and her neighbors once lived remains a barren lot, home to migratory birds and feral cats. So much for tax revenue.
People outside civil liberties circles tend not to be acquainted with the Kelo decision, but this -- eminent domain abuse -- is yet another way our civil liberties are eroded. Having private property be safe from some public official with favors to dispense is a fundamental right in a free society.
For more information on Courtney and Ted's film, here's their Facebook page (why not toss them a "like"), and here's their website, if you'd be interested in investing in their film (which already has a substantial amount of its funding).
Too many people have become infatuated with the "for the public good" argument and see private property as a sign of wealth that must be redistributed "for the public good."
They rationalize tearing up poor neighborhoods by forcing builders to include "affordable" housing set asides in every new development; and drive up the prices for everyone else.
After all, better the government gets that new shopping mall and lots of tax revenues to spend on political boondoggles ("for the public good") than some poor guy stays in a house that, through hard work and thrift, he owns free and clear.
Conan the Grammarian at June 23, 2014 11:31 AM
Except that he never owns that free and clear. Oh, sure, he's paid of the bank they're happy to have done business with him. But he's merely renting the property from the county.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 23, 2014 11:42 AM
Kelo was a milestone in American politics. Liberals and libertarian-leaning conservatives both looked at the decision and said "That's terrible", and then they both realized they had said the same thing... A seed germinated with the Kelo decision, and while it hasn't quite flowered yet, I'm still keeping an eye on it.
(Conversely, Kelo is where the American Left abandoned its facade of liberalism, and went all in for authoritarian government. But that's OK, because now it is exposed for what it is.)
Cousin Dave at June 23, 2014 12:52 PM
Actually, Kelo was fairly decided. And since none of you have read the decision, and don't even have the common sense to be ashamed of passing judgment on a decision you refuse to read, I doubt any of you could really say anything that would change my mind on the Kelo decision.
Patrick at June 28, 2014 12:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/23/culture_can_tam.html#comment-4802737">comment from PatrickActually, Kelo was fairly decided.
And you think that why?
And yes, I have read the decision.
It isn't long or a hard read and other people can read it, too.
I'll find a link for it:
Here -- third one down. First one is a two-page summary. Decision is only 20 pages long and they're short pages, many of them, with footnotes taking up much of the page.
http://law.justia.com/lawsearch?query=kelo
Amy Alkon at June 28, 2014 12:21 PM
If you've read it, then why do you act like this is the first time in history that the government has forced the sale of property from party A to party B?
It's not. Not by a long shot. The decision cites case after case after case. Public ownership is not the only way to confer public use. The SCOTUS found that increased tax revenue and the creation of new jobs was sufficient to fall under public use.
Again. All of this was arrived at with precedent. The Court did not make some new, groundbreaking decision that was completely unheard of.
Patrick at June 28, 2014 1:09 PM
Leave a comment