The seizing of personal property is a troublesome topic that breeds conflict and confusion throughout Western society and culture. The recent Kelo ruling has contributed further to the controversy, leaving many wondering: Just how private is private property?

In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Connecticut city's authority to appropriate private property for economic development. The court's divided (5-4) decision in Kelo v. New London declared that private landowners had no constitutional grounds to resist eminent-domain property seizures.

Eminent domain is derived from the Latin dominium eminens, meaning "supreme lordship." It identifies the inherent power assumed by a sovereign governing authority to appropriate land for public projects within a society and culture.

Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who argued the Kelo case before the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in the June 24, 2006, issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Since Kelo, cities have pushed out motels for commercial development and replaced small businesses with upscale hotels; bulldozed houses to make room for shopping malls. There's an even stronger and uglier trend: Towns and cities are taking modest-sized houses from their owners and handing them over to the builders of trendier, more upscale homes and condominiums (whose new owners will pay higher taxes)."

Before we rush to condemn all "condemnations," however, we should consider how they have contributed to the development of the country's infrastructure and thereby enhanced the lives of many. Airports, bridges, tunnels, railroads, interstate highways and public parks that are such an integral part of modern life simply wouldn't exist without the exercise of eminent domain. The framers of the Constitution envisioned such eventualities and provided for them in what is commonly called the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The wording defines business morality, acknowledges the ownership of private property and anticipates the need for the taking of private land for public use.

What has caused concern about the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London is that it has ostensibly expanded the traditional threshold for public takings from "public use," typically the building of a bridge or tunnel traveled by the general public, to a "public purpose" standard, such as economic development which subtly changes business morality. Supporters of the majority ruling suggest that expanding the interpretation of eminent domain to include economic development better equips municipalities to revive blighted neighborhoods and restore economically distressed areas.

The business morality aspect of this interpretation is questioned by those who oppose it. The fear behind the reactive furor to the ruling is that it now appears the government can take private property from one individual and make it available to another private party for the perceived purpose of adding to the local tax base.

Subsequently, several states have responded by enacting initiatives to protect the property rights of landowners.

The potential abuse of personal property seizure is not a new problem. Even in biblical history we find examples of envy and lust for land. Does a citizen who is a private landowner have the ethical and moral right to say no to an authority that envisions an allegedly better purpose for his or her land?

Consider this account from 1 Kings 21 in the Hebrew Scriptures. Naboth, a citizen of Jezreel, owned a vineyard adjacent to one of the palaces of King Ahab of Samaria, who admired the property. He offered to trade Naboth another (even better) piece of land or to pay just compensation in cash for his vineyard. However, Naboth declined the king's offer, citing his family's attachment to the land for several generations. King Ahab's wife Jezebel had Naboth falsely accused of a crime and thus discredited in the eyes of local community leaders and executed so that the king could have his herb garden.

God's servant Elijah was sent to Ahab to charge him with having "sold [himself] to do evil in the sight of the LORD" (verse 20). This example shows, contrary to a common misconception, the Judeo-Christian ethic is not critical of the concept of private property.

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion of the Kelo ruling, expressed the concern of many regarding the new standard of public purpose: "Whatever the reason for a given condemnation, the effect is the same from the constitutional perspective--private property is forcibly relinquished to new private ownership. . . . 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"

The people of any href="http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/overview.aspx?id=83">society and culturehave the moral and ethical right to own their private property and be free from fear that eminent domain will be abused.

About the Author

Author, Thomas Fitzpatrick contributes articles on society and culture for Vision Media. For more information on these and other topics, please visit http://www.vision.org.