BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

property rights Archive

Wednesday

20

June 2012

1

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Brown Thumb Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Who knew that wanna-be tyrants bureaucrats hate plants?

Last August, Morrison’s front and back yards were filled with flowers in bloom, lemon, stevia, garlic chives, grapes, strawberries, apple mint, spearmint, peppermint, an apple tree, walnut tree, pecan trees and much more.

She got a letter from the city saying there had been a complaint about her yard.

She said she took pictures to meet with city inspectors, but they wouldn’t listen, so she invited them to her home so they could point out the problem areas.

“Everything, everything needs to go,” Morrison said they told her.

…She said she went to court on August 15, and the judge told them to come back in October. But the very next day, men were cutting down most of her plants.

They even cut down some of her trees -– ones that bore fruit and nuts -– and went up next to her house and basically removed everything in her front flower bed.

…Morrison said she had a problem at her last property with code enforcement, so this time, she read the ordinance, which says plants can’t be over 12-inches tall unless they’re used for human consumption. She made sure everything she grew could be eaten, which she told the inspectors.

“Every word out of their mouth was, ‘we don’t care,'” Morrison said.

…Morrison said she used many of the plants that were destroyed to treat her diabetes, high-blood pressure and arthritis.

“Not only are the plants my livelihood, they’re my food and I was unemployed at the time and had no food left, no medicine left, and I didn’t have insurance,” Morrison said. “They took away my life and livelihood.”

But government protects the little guy! Government is so good, in fact, that we should hand it control over our personal health care. What could go wrong?

Less flippantly, this sort of tyranny is only possible because earlier governments have succeeded in devaluing economic and property rights. The New Deal era sold a scared public on the idea that economic liberty stood in the way of economic security. After some bullying, the Supreme Court then provided its rubber stamp. And so we’ve handed government control over the economy and anything that might rationally or irrationally be said to impact it in exchange for handouts and the illusion of fiscal security.

Economic and property rights, as this case demonstrates, are truly at the heart of all liberty. What manner of liberty can we be said to have if a citizen cannot grow sustenance from his or her own land? Other than life, I can think of no more basic liberty in all of human history than that of providing sustenance for oneself.

Friday

8

June 2012

0

COMMENTS

"Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others"

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Identity Politics, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Americans like to believe that we are all equal before the law. It wasn’t always that way. White landowners once had special privileges. But slavery has been eliminated and suffrage extended to all citizens. Sure, some folks find exceptions and room for impreovement, but by and large we think the law gives us all the same status – that protections granted to one are granted to all.

That is not the case.

From those old days of slavery and limited voting rights, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. You see, there are such things as “protected classes” which receive special rights and considerations vis-à-vis the rest of society. If you belong to such a class, the law gives you additional protections. Sound unAmerican? You betcha.

Consider this story about a professional photographer forced to provide their services for a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, even though they didn’t want to (making a lie of the voluntary part of the voluntary exchange we typically think resides at the heart of a free society). I could easily go on about how this is a fundamental violation of private property rights and a form of enslavement to compel such use of another’s labor against their will. I could. But what really struck me was this passage:

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based legal alliance of Christian attorneys and others that represented the studio, plans to appeal. Elane Photography argued that it provided discretionary, unique and expressive services that aren’t a public accommodation under the Human Rights Act.

The studio asked hypothetically whether an African-American photographer would be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

The court responded: “The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”

There you have it. It’s bad enough that you can be forced into service for anyone, but that you can for some and not others seems to make it much worse.

I bet you didn’t know that the Declaration really said that ” all men are created equal, except for gays, women and minorities, who belong to protected classes.” According to this court, some Americans get more rights than others. Four legs are good, you see, but two legs are better.

Friday

17

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

Two Bad Stories for Property Rights

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Two recent stories are sure to get your blood boiling if you support private property rights. The first regards a decision by the Supreme Court not to hear a New York eminent domain case, which saw Columbia University first game the system to have property falsely labeled as “blighted,” which it was then free to force out of the hands of the rightful owners.

The legal fight began in 2008, when the Empire State Development Corporation—the state agency with the power to invoke eminent domain—deemed the neighborhood “blighted,” paving the way for eminent domain, which is only legal for projects that serve the “public good.”

Sprayregen, Singh, and Kaur sued the state after the ESDC approval, and a year later, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division ruled in a surprise decision that eminent domain in this case was in fact illegal, saying that the project was for the benefit of an “elite” private institution and thus did not qualify as a public good.

ESDC immediately appealed to the highest court in the state, the Court of Appeals, which overturned the Appellate Division ruling and argued in favor of eminent domain for Columbia’s campus. This ruling now stands uncontested.

“We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court of the United States decided not to hear this important eminent domain case,” said Norman Siegel, Sprayregen’s attorney and the former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The denial … means that the abuse of eminent domain in New York stands.”

The second outrageous story also comes from New York, where the owner of an antiques shop had hundreds of vintage subway signs confiscated by police as evidence when he was charged with theft of the items. The charges were later dismissed, but police are refusing to return his property.

Mr. LeRoy, who owns Billy’s Antiques in Greenwich Village, is trying to reclaim possession of about 100 vintage subway signs that were seized as evidence upon his arrest on theft charges. With the charges now dismissed in Manhattan Criminal Court, Mr. LeRoy wants the signs back.

But the Manhattan district attorney’s office has said it does not have the authority to return them, and is unsure who the rightful owner is. The office told Mr. LeRoy that he may have to sue to get them back.

The district attorney’s stance is based mostly on a provision of the New York City administrative code, which essentially puts the burden on people who have property taken from them to prove they are the rightful owner.

Saturday

28

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Alabama Redistributing from the Poor to the Rich

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling

Advocates of big government think it is appropriate for the state to redistribute wealth out of a sense of fairness.  They usually claim to want some form of taking from the wealthy to give to the poor.  But the practice of redistribution is actually quite different.  In reality, redistributive states take from those without political influence and give to the politically powerful.  This results in situations like this one in Montgomery Alabama, where the city is destroying the homes of the poor and giving their land to rich developers.

…[H]ere is how it works: The city decides it doesn’t like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a “public nuisance.” It mails you a notice that you have 45 days to demolish your property, at your expense, or the city will do it for you (and, of course, bill you).

Your tab with the city will constitute a lien on your property, and if you don’t pay it within 30 days (or pay your installments on time; if you owe over $10,000, you can work out a deal to pay back the city for destroying your home over a period of time, with interest), the city can sell your now-vacant land to the highest bidder.

Alabama law empowers municipalities to do just this. Officials can demolish structures that they determine, “due to poor design, obsolescence, or neglect, have become unsafe to the extent of becoming public nuisances…and [are] causing or may cause a blight or blighting influence on the city and the neighborhoods in which [they are] located.” Keep in mind, so-called standards like “obsolescence” are so vague they can mean anything, so even a well-maintained home that government officials don’t like the look of can be fed to the bulldozers.

While this may sound like eminent domain for private gain, it’s not. This is a completely different section of Alabama’s code that the city of Montgomery is now abusing habitually to tear down homes it does not like in a predominantly African American community — once home to Rosa Parks.

Tuesday

3

August 2010

1

COMMENTS

Tuesday

19

September 2006

0

COMMENTS

Family Farm Seized By Eminent Domain

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The eminent domain boogeyman has been holed up in my closet for a while, giving way to other important matters like that pesky war against radical jihad. Nevertheless, it’s an important issue that hasn’t been dealt with since SCOTUS ruled that this land is neither mine nor yours, but the governments.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court had essentially allowed cities to invoke the power of eminent domain to seize private property not for roads or schools, as is common practice, but for less noble purposes, such as indulging Biff McFranchiser’s discovery that your land is the ideal location from which to sell hamburgers. The cities, which would force you to sell at whatever “fair market” price they demanded on threat of condemnation, would get to keep the toy at the bottom of your Unhappy Meal, in the form of higher tax revenue. Biff, to the cities’ thinking, would generate more income for their coffers than you would by, say, having Pictionary parties or sitting on your couch watching TV.

. . .Piscataway (an Indian term meaning “it is getting dark”) was once a charming farm community. But like so much of America, it is now a charmless depot off the Turnpike, a 19-square-mile blur of box stores, strip malls, and high-density housing. In the middle of this, sprawled over 75 acres, sits the Halper farm, one of the last agricultural tracts in Piscataway.

. . .The township has made feints at taking the Halper property for decades. In 1975, it actually did force the Halpers to sell 25 acres, which Piscataway added to an adjoining park. But the current festivities got underway in earnest in 1998. Around that time, the city purportedly grew nervous that some of its last privately owned green space might fall into the hands of ghastly developers, the kind that are regularly found in bed with the local politicians, making New Jersey a notorious “pay to play” state. Take a ride around the perimeter of the Halper farm, and such concerns don’t seem to have plagued city planner consciences in the past, what with all the quaint mom ‘n’ pop operations like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Hollywood Tans that blanket the town like bad wall-to-wall carpeting.

From the look of things, plenty of people are making hefty profits selling Piscataway real estate off to the highest bidder. But to the city’s thinking, the Halpers shouldn’t be among them. They only worked the farm for nearly a century, why should they make money off it? Never mind that they’d received unsolicited offers for their land for decades and managed not to sell. Piscataway officials were coming after their property anyway, vowing to maintain it as “open space.” An incredulous Clements asks what could be “more ‘open space’ than a farm?”

Wednesday

26

July 2006

0

COMMENTS

Ohio Court Defends Private Property

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

An Ohio suburb’s attempt to seize private homes using eminent domain so they can build offices and shops was shot down by Ohio’s high court.

Ohio’s highest court said a Cincinnati suburb may not take over private property to make way for a $125 million development of offices, shops and restaurants.

The case is the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize homes for use in private development.

The Ohio case involved the city of Norwood, which used its eminent domain authority to overrule holdouts against private development. The project is meant to revitalize the neighborhood, but the state court says economic development alone doesn’t justify taking homes.

Monday

26

June 2006

0

COMMENTS

Updating The Eminent Domain Executive Order

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling

In my post on President Bush’s order claiming to limit eminent domain, I pointed out that the opinions of Daren Bakst at the John Locke Foundation and Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy were in apparent disagreement. But now Bakst has taken a closer look and largely agrees with Somin’s skepticism.

Somin argues, and I agree, that the Order is undermined by the following language:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

The problem is the “merely” language. According to the Order, it probably is o.k. to take private property even if it is for economic development reasons as long as it benefits the general public and doesn’t “merely” benefit private parties. Even after Kelo, no governmental entity would argue that a taking is merely to benefit a private party–they always use the argument that a taking is for the benefit of the public.

At this point legal opinion seems fairly strong that the order will have little to no effect on limiting eminent domain seizures.