• Property rights: Tear down the castle Property rights: Tear down the castle St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 24, 2005 Forget the old adage that “a man’s home is his castle.” That may have been true when Sir Edward Coke wrote
• Property rights: Tear down the castle
Property rights: Tear down the castle
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 24, 2005
Forget the old adage that “a man’s home is his castle.” That may have been true when Sir Edward Coke wrote it in 1604, but it isn’t anymore. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court rewrote it to say, approximately: A man’s home is his castle, unless somebody wants to build a bigger castle in its place.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 that lifelong residents of New London, Conn., had to surrender their homes involuntarily to make way for a big redevelopment of the town’s waterfront centered around the arrival of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. The residents’ houses weren’t run-down. The city just wanted the additional taxes and economic activity.
The Fifth Amendment forbids the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The question in New London was whether “public use” includes taking property from one private person and giving it to another private person. The majority said it did, so long as there was some “public purpose,” and economic development and higher taxes were perfectly legitimate public purposes. Four conservative dissenters said the court was essentially reading “public use” out of the Constitution.
As a matter of justice, the decision seems unfair. Wilhelmina Dery lives in a house that had been in her family for a century. She was born in the house in 1918, and her husband moved in when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door in a house bought as a wedding present. Why should they have to give up their castles for offices or parking lots?
Some residents of Sunset Hills have been asking the same question. They are being moved out of their homes by eminent domain to make room for a big commercial development that will pay the city more in taxes.
As unjust as the New London decision seems in personal terms, it makes sense as a matter of constitutional interpretation. Justice John Paul Stevens’ decision for the court was based soundly on court precedent.
The court has read “public use” broadly for many decades. Initially, this helped mining companies that wanted to run conveyor belts over peoples’ private property in the West. Later, it helped officials knock down slums to redevelop cities, such as Washington, D.C. Still later, Hawaii used this broad interpretation to redistribute land.
The New London dissenters had to disavow parts of these precedents to make their argument. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the main dissent, took the highly unusual step of distancing herself from part of her own opinion for the court in the Hawaii land reform case. That’s a pretty good sign that Justice Stevens had the better of the argument.
Conservatives have been trying for years to breathe more life into the constitutional protection of property rights. Many saw the sympathetic cause of the New London homeowners as a foot in the door.
But their view could have handcuffed economic development.
The court’s decision may fuel the trend for big box stores to displace little businesses and homes, as in Sunset Hills. But it also will help cities improve their economic health or aesthetics. In essence, the decision is a bow to modernity. There aren’t castles anymore.
