Previous Page | Next Page

Your
Home,
Your
Castle

by State Senator
Chip Rogers

The Kelo v. New London decision washed out that idea like a tsunami hitting a sand castle. So let us now resolve to begin rebuilding this private property rights principle again.

First, I plan to introduce or co-sponsor a Constitutional Amendment that will clearly define what we believe is proper in the State of Georgia. The question on our ballot will hopefully look something like this:

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to limit the power of government to take private property, the power of eminent domain, to only the state, counties, and municipalities and only for designated public purposes, which do not include transferring condemned land to private entities for economic development and increasing the tax revenues of a government?

Second, we will continue to move forward with Senate Bill 86. This is a piece of legislation that passed the State Senate last year by margin of 40 - 10. It would essentially achieve the same goal as the constitutional amendment through state law. Of course a state law would not prevent the Georgia Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional.

Third, we need to seriously consider reigning in a practice known as "Inverse Condemnation." This is where local authorities use the power of rules and regulations to make a portion of your property worthless and do nothing to compensate you for your loss. An example would be a local ordinance that increases stream buffers and thereby causes the landowner to lose a significant portion of his land for its best and most profitable use. If the landowner is required to pay taxes on this property but cannot use it because of the new regulation, should the landowner be compensated for his loss even though the property was not physically taken?

Fourth, we also should look at removing the power of eminent domain/condemnation from un-elected officials whose purpose is economic development. This would not include utilities, but rather economic development authorities. Simply put, if someone is going to take private property to give to someone else merely to increase the tax base, at least the voters should be given an opportunity to respond at the ballot box.

Finally, on a lighter note, a would-be property developer has filed a petition in the city of Weare, New Hampshire to request the power of condemnation be used on a local residence for the purpose of tearing it down and building a hotel which would bring in more tax revenue to the local government. This would be a sad story if it weren't for the fact that the home belongs to Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Justice Souter is one of the five jurists who decided a man's home is not his castle, but it could apparently be someone else's hotel. Let's hope the city council in Weare agrees. I look forward to spending a night at the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

Chip Rogers is the State Senator for District 21. You can call him at (770) 516-0543 or fax him at (770) 936-1967. You also can e-mail Chip at ChipRogers2@comcast.net. Chip also serves on The TowneLaker Community Board.

The right to free speech, the right to worship, the right to petition your government, the right to private property. These are some of the most basic pillars of a free society, right? Well not according to five black-robed justices in Washington D.C. In a shocking 5 - 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that your private property may be taken for no other reason than somebody else wants it and they are willing to pay the local government higher taxes. I know it sounds absurd but that is the opinion the Supreme Court handed down on June 23, 2005 in the case of Kelo vs. New London.

The story began when the Pfizer Corporation wanted to take the homes of seven families in New London, Connecticut. The families did not want to sell at any price. Not giving up so easily, Pfizer then turned to the New London Development Authority, an un-elected body that had been granted the power of condemnation by the local government. The Development Authority decided to exercise its power and attempted to force the homeowners to surrender their property. Oh by the way, Pfizer needed the land so desperately so they could build a parking lot. Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners, decided to fight rather than roll over. And fight she did, the case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court determined that local governments should have the right to determine the meaning of 'public use.' A surprising ruling considering the 5th Amendment clearly states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Apparently this little fact didn't seem to bother five of the justices who figured 'public use' is open to the broadest of interpretations. I would imagine 99 out of 100 citizens understand that 'public use' means roads, schools, utilities, etc... not a Pfizer Corporation parking lot.

So here we are, facing a new standard in America where your home is your home as long as the government hasn't found a better deal. What can be done? Well fortunately the Supreme Court ruling left a small silver lining - a window of opportunity that we must exploit for all it is worth. Justice Stevens in his majority opinion allowed that legislatures could determine the meaning of 'public use.' I say we do this immediately.

The Georgia legislature will reconvene in January. Our first order of business should be to put some sanity back into this private property rights equation. We have slowly drifted away from the understanding that property, and the right to own property without interference, is the foundation of a free market society. Overzealous zonings, condemnation acts and unnecessary ordinances have all slowly eroded the idea that our property is ours to do with what we like.