« Fearing China | Main | It Has Started »
June 23, 2005
Economic Growth vs. Individual Rights
Supreme Court “liberals” stood up for developers, big business, and the power of the government over the individual in the 5-4 ruling today of Kelo v. New London.
It goes something like this: You own your home, unless of course your local government determines that it would be more useful to the economy as Burger King or a Target. If they feel that’s the case they can bulldoze your residence in the name of economic progress. Sickening.
Look, I think economic growth is extremely important, but it is not an end goal. Individual rights should trump any goals for "the good of society" set by politicians, economic development included. Wasn’t economic growth used in the 19th century to defend slavery? Sadly, once again, the government is ignoring the moral importance of individual freedom.
What scares me most about the Kelo case is that it makes states like California a prime target. Take cash strapped San Diego for instance. With a capped property tax of 1% that grows with inflation, local officials must be licking their chops at the prospects of refilling the city coffers. What’s to stop them from turning Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s home bought in the 1960s into a shopping center? Not only will the city start collecting additional sales taxes, but they’ll also get 1% of the property’s 2005 value annually instead of 1% of the property’s value in 1960. With California real estate prices performing as they have over the last few decades, this becomes an ever more appealing option to politicians.
There are lots of great analyses across the web but I thought this post by Radley summed it up nicely:
Sigh
The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that localities can seize land from private property owners and give it to developers -- for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues.
The five most liberal justices on the court made up the majority, once again proving that today's left is utterly devoid of any principle other than ensuring massive, all-encompassing, ever-growing government power. In this case, they'll gladly side with huge corporations who collude with state and local government to screw powerless people out of the homes and property they've owned for generations. The corporations get cheap land below market value, and the local city council members get more tax money to throw around to win votes.
This was the worst Supreme Court term for the cause of liberty in a very long time.
It's hard to express how disappointing the last few months have been.
And this by Julian (via Will) wasn't bad either:
Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?
. . . The straightforward implication is that any taking of a private residence to hand it over to a business, or just from a poor person to a wealthy person, will be a taking in service of a public purpose: As a general rule, the rich pay more taxes than the poor, and businesses pay more taxes than households.
Posted by Peter Mork at June 23, 2005 11:10 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.economicswithaface.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/161/[What is Peter Mork's first name?]
(Please add the answer to the question to the end of the link in order to trackback this entry.)
Comments
Email Comments Here