GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
by James W. Harris
The Next Big Property Rights Battle?
"Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y.
He even obtained approvals from the local planning board.
"But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone,
Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to
reach an understanding with a private company that had been selected by Port
Chester officials to control all construction inside the renewal zone.
"The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay
$800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused,
Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and
instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.
"Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal
proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain."
So begins a Christian Science Monitor story on what is shaping up as the next
big U.S. property rights battle. The case has made it to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which will decide whether a local government can give a private company
like G&S the power to extort payment from a property owner by using the threat
of seizing that property.
The fight to defend Didden's property rights is being led by the Institute For
Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest, non-profit law firm that defends
individual rights. IJ became nationally famous for fighting the notorious Kelo
eminent domain case, which they ultimately lost. In the Kelo decision, the
Supreme Court ruled that local governments could seize private property and
turn it over to favored private developers. That case set off a firestorm of
protest across the country, leading many state legislatures to pass laws
prohibiting Kelo-type seizures.
IJ hopes to persuade the Supreme Court to rule against the kind of extortion
being used against property owner Didden.
"We want the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution does not permit
governments or citizens acting on their behalf to demand money in exchange for
allowing property owners to keep what is rightfully theirs," said Dana Berliner
of IJ. "The very fact that we have to ask the highest court in the land for
such a ruling underscores how precarious and threatening things are getting for
ordinary American landowners."
"My case is about extortion through the abuse of eminent domain; it is about
payoffs and government run amok," says property owner Didden. "It took me years
of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I
own it. How dare the Village of Port Chester and this developer threaten me in
this way. Unless the Supreme Court takes up my case, I fear for anyone else who
owns a piece of property -- not just in Port Chester, but anywhere a
politically connected developer is eyeing it."
This case, and the Kelo case, illustrate the ugliness of the sleazy deals local
governments are making with developers to deprive property owners of their most
basic rights. Let's hope that the Supreme Court rules against this practice.
Otherwise, government-connected developers across America will be given a green
light to threaten property owners: "Your money or your land."
(Sources: Christian Science Monitor
csmonitor.com
Institute for Justice
ij.org
To learn more about the Advocates and our work for liberty:
theadvocates.org
To learn more about libertarianism:
libertarianism.com |
