Does private property exist?

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court approved New London, Connecticut's attempts to forcibly seize several private homes so the city could sell the land to a developer who wanted to build a huge commercial complex. This was a result of the Court's refusal to be 'activist' and of its reflexive deference to legislatures at the expense of individual Constitutional rights. Do rights really exist if they can be erased by a few politicians? I objected to this on several levels.

The most straightforward objection is that the ruling was based on a misinterpretation of a fairly straightforward constitutional clause. New London used eminent domain to seize the houses. The 5th Amendment to the document concludes: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent domain is authorized in the Constitution, but not in the way New London used it. Typically, eminent domain is used for infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, stuff that is open to and used by the public.

The developers New London wanted to give the forcibly seized land to wanted to build a hotel, health club and offices. The idea is that the public will derive a benefit because these commercial enterprises will generate more tax revenue than would simple houses. That tax revenue could be used to improve services or lower the property tax rate.

There's one problem: the Constitution authorizes land be taken for public USE, not simply for some alleged public BENEFIT. Unless New London residents can stay for free in the hotel or use the health club for free, then the complex is not intended for public USE. If the complex's owners can ban protesters or other expressions of free speech (something that can't be done on public land), then the complex is not intended for public use.

I also opposed this because I was afraid eminent domain would be used for social engineering, to kick out poor or middle income residents and replace them with rich people or with businesses that cater to rich people.

"Far-fetched, Chicken Little rantings!" you say.

It's already happening in Riviera Beach, Florida, according to this article in The Los Angeles Times,

In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case in the nation, the mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000 residents, tear down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a waterfront yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.

According to the city, the project create a city respected for its community pride and purpose and reshape it into a most desirable urban [place] to live, work, shop, and relax for its residents, business and visitors.


Almost 20 percent of the city's population would be forcibly evicted (with compensation, because apparently that makes it ok) as a result of this social engineering monstrosity.

Economic conventional wisdom tells us that respect for private property is the anchor of our entire capitalist system, a main reason why the US is more prosperous than African and Latin American countries. But does private property really exist if the government can just seize it to you and give to big developers on a whim?