Pick Your Villain

Bloggers and bulletin board participants have been fuming over the SCOTUS's Kelo vs. New London decision. As you've probably heard by now, the upshot of this ruling is that local governments may employ eminent domain to force property owners to sell their land to other private interests for economic development. In short, the deed to your home is now permanently on an auction block. Despite the reassurances of the 5 justices in the majority that this ruling does not permit the forced transfer of property purely for private gain, I have a feeling that will happen. This ruling offers a splendid vehicle for the time-honored practice of cloaking pecuniary motives in bromides about civic good. A participant in a bulletin board I frequent said that he had lunch yesterday with a contractor who told him land developers are ecstatic about the ruling. An anonymous anecdote, maybe, but easy to find credible, given the opportunism of developers (evidenced by the unrelenting transformation of fields and woodlots anywhere within two hours of an urban center).

Scary implications aside, one of the most interesting things about this ruling is the range of explanations offered for it by internet critics. I've noticed that pretty much everyone, regardless of their political orientation, blames this on or otherwise links it to their personal bête noire. Some conservatives, noting that the more liberal members of the court made up the majority in the case, contend that the ruling is a natural extension of the liberal desire to expand government power. If true, I would say that the justices' hold to a mutant liberalism, unmoored from the traditional concerns that have motivated liberals to employ government on behalf of the citizens. Of course, my personal strain of liberalism or progressivism or whatever you want to call it has a strong populist flavor. Not surprisingly, then, I see this as an extension of the "highest profit regardless of the consequences" mentality, and of the trend toward government action to aid business interests at the expense of individual citizens. More something you would expect from Bush administration officials than allegedly liberal judges, but plenty of socially liberal, Democratic officials act likewise. There are not clear partisan boundaries to this logic.

Cory, at An Empire Wilderness, feared that the way things are going, pretty soon it may be in the ‘public good’ to seize property for churches or faith-based institutions. Given that churches don't pay property taxes, I'd suspect the opposite is more likely, especially for churches like mine that are active on matters of social and economic justice. This could be a means of silencing any number of politically inconvenient groups or persons. The most ill-conceived response I've seen is a New York Times editorial from yesterday, which applauded the ruling as a victory over the "'property rights' movement." I've followed and written about the property rights crowd for a while, and I think the scare quotes are well deserved. They appeal to their sovereignty over their property to flout zoning and environmental regulations, and I'll admit there is a certain logic to that, at least if you stopped thinking after you read Locke. But the Kelo ruling makes mere occupation of property tenuous. The issue here isn't balancing owners' rights with environmental or social concerns, but making anybody's home available to the highest bidder. Of course, members of the Times's editorial board likely do not occupy homes that are probable targets of redevelopment.

The silver lining to this is that the case may well unite America's polarized citizens behind an issue. At least if we don't forget about it until the eviction notice comes.