[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14236-14237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKES SERIOUS BLOW TO CONCEPT OF PRIVATE 
                                PROPERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday handed down 
a decision that will ultimately be very harmful to our freedom and our 
prosperity. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court decided that a city 
government could take a private home by eminent domain for the benefit 
of another private party.
  This decision was in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 
Connecticut, and it strikes a serious blow right at the heart of or the 
concept of private property, which our Founding Fathers believed in so 
strongly. If anyone does not realize how important private ownership of 
property is to both our freedom and our prosperity, they should do a 
more detailed study of economics and world history. The most prosperous 
countries in the world, without exception, have been those that gave 
the greatest protection to private property. Not only is it important 
to individuals, it is important to government as well.
  It sounds great for a politician to create a park; however, now that 
we have so many Federal, State, and local parks, we cannot take care of 
them properly. Also, most of them are vastly underused. But more 
importantly, when property goes from private to public ownership, it 
goes off the tax rolls. This means that taxes have to continually go up 
on the property that remains in private hands for the always increasing 
costs of schools and other public functions.
  We can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land, Mr. 
Speaker. I will repeat that. We can never satisfy government's appetite 
for money or land. They always want more. The Federal Government 
already owns over 30 percent of the land in this Nation. Another 20 
percent is held by State or local governments or quasi-governmental 
agencies. So today about half the land is in some type of public 
ownership. But government always wants more and is continuously taking 
more. In addition, there are more and more restrictions being placed on 
the land that remains in private ownership, so developers are having to 
crowd more and more people into apartments, townhouses, or homes on 
postage-stamp lots, all at a rapidly escalating prices.
  Some have said we do not need to worry about this decision because 
this new power will be used sparingly by local governments. Those who 
say that either do not really believe very strongly in the right of 
private property or they do not realize how government at all levels 
can rationalize or justify almost anything, especially almost any 
taking of property.
  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent against the Court's 
decision said: ``The Court today significantly expands the meaning of 
public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property 
currently put to ordinary private use and give it over for new, 
ordinary private use so long as the new use is predicted to generate 
some secondary benefit for the public, such as increased tax revenue . 
. . But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to 
generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus,''

[[Page 14237]]

she said, ``there really is now no realistic constraint on the taking 
of private property.''
  Justice O'Connor went on to say, ``For who among us can say she 
already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her 
property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing 
is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, 
any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''
  She later added, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of 
another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be 
random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with 
disproportionate influence and power in the political process . . . As 
for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property 
from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot 
have intended this perverse result.''
  In my home region of East Tennessee, government has taken huge 
amounts of land. Almost all has been taken from poor or lower-income 
families who would be wealthy today if they still had their beautiful 
land. Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent, ``Something has gone 
seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. 
Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes 
themselves are not.'' Justice Thomas went on to say, ``The consequences 
of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be 
harmful . . . Extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any 
economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall 
disproportionately on the poor.''
  Mr. Speaker, this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a very 
dangerous one and will end up being especially harmful to the poor and 
lower-income and working people of this country.
  Thomas Jefferson once said, ``A government big enough to give you 
everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything 
you have.''

                          ____________________