Two runaway money trains that promised to deliver economic development at all costs — to taxpayers, that is — recently crashed into a couple of serious judicial roadblocks. If early indications hold true, taxpayers stand a good chance of derailing a couple of big government’s most-lucrative flimflams.
The judicial decisions — one in Ohio, and the other in Washington, D.C. — although heard in separate venues, actually are related. The Ohio decision could eventually deter economic development “incentives” in other states, including North Carolina. The other case, in the U.S. Supreme Court, could reject (or sanction) the seizure of private property, taken supposedly for the public purpose of stimulating economic development.
Specifically, in the first development, a federal appeals court ruled that economic development incentives given by Ohio to automobile manufacturer Daimler-Chrysler violated the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the other development, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will to make way for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes that produce more tax revenue. Both policies impose extreme sacrifices on taxpayers.
The Supreme Court case, known as Kelo v New London, originated in Connecticut. But the rights of all home and business owners hang in the balance, according to the Institute of Justice, which is representing private citizen Susette Kelo. Kelo is the owner of a home and a beautiful stretch of waterfront property situated along the Thames River. Unbeknown to Kelo when she bought the property, the city of New London, the New London Development Corporation, and Pfizer Corp. had reached an agreement that Pfizer would build a new facility nearby. The NLDC would take all the land in Kelo’s neighborhood and transfer it to a private developer, who in turn would build an expensive hotel for Pfizer visitors, expensive condominiums for company employees, an office building for biotech companies, and other projects to complement the firm’s project. The state and the city would contribute millions of dollars. The only thing standing in the way was Kelo and her neighbors.
Kelo is not alone, the IJ says. “All across the country, state and local governments are abusing the power of eminent domain to take private homes and businesses for the benefit of other, more politically favored private businesses who promise more jobs and taxes. In just five years, the government filed or threatened condemnation of more than 10,000 properties for private parties.”
In a 4-3 decision earlier this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that even if there was nothing wrong with your home, your business, or even your neighborhood, the government can use eminent domain to take your land and give it to the developer for his private gain.
When writing the U.S. Constitution, the nation’s Founders understood that the human right in property was the basis of freedom. They based their belief on the teachings of English philosopher John Locke, the intellectual father of the United States. Locke and the Founders believed that government existed solely for the purpose of protecting property rights and preserving public order.
Today citizens live in fear of a leviathan — their own government — that rather than protecting their property, tries at every turn to steal it. The larceny is done under a contortion of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” The operative phrase is “for public use,” which up until recently, meant just that: PUBLIC use. Until the last few years, public uses were interpreted strictly to mean highways, government buildings, and other necessary government projects. But more frequently “public” is being liberally interpreted to mean anything that will generate extra revenue for gluttonous government.
While North Carolina so far hasn’t followed the pattern of other states of seizing property for economic development, it appears that, given a little more time, our state leaders will begin doing so. And then they will sing the old refrain: “We don’t like doing it, but if we are going to compete with other states, we have to step up to the plate.”
For the sake of individual rights, and freedom as it is known in America, every citizen should pray the Supreme Court rules for the citizenry and stops the immoral theft of property and tax revenue for the sake of economic development.
Richard Wagner is the editor of Carolina Journal.