This Ruling Allows Officials to Seize Your House Because It’s ‘Ugly and Dumb’


Just over ten years ago, the Supreme Court decided a crucial case involving eminent domain – Kelo v. New London. The dispute was extremely important in the continuing struggle to protect property rights against government encroachment.

Under the Fifth Amendment, governments may take private property, but only if it is done for “public use” and if the owner is paid just compensation. But what if the government wanted to take your property simply to transfer it to another person or organization because politicians thought you weren’t making the best use of it? That is what happened when the New London Development Corporation wanted to seize the homes of Suzette Kelo and several others in 1999.

New London didn’t need their land for a road or bridge that the public would use. Instead, it wanted their land as part of a redevelopment plan worked out in conjunction with the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Could the government seize and destroy homes that people wanted to remain in just because the big new complex envisioned was supposed to create jobs and bring in more tax revenue? Are such takings for “public use” under the Fifth Amendment?
Read more at AffluentInvestor

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Trending on Liberty Alliance

Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become a Liberty Alliance insider.

Send this to friend