RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
Crony capitalism gets the high court green light; houses of worship will be targeted next
Having been gone all day, I am only now able to write about the breathtaking destruction of private-property rights by the US Supreme Court in the Kelo case.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue. …
“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
It’s not our homes that are most at risk despite this case. It’s America’s churches, synagogues and mosques.
If the purported intention of such property condemnation and seizure is increasing tax revenue, as Justice Stevens clearly believed it was, then there is no kind of building more vulnerable than a house of worship, for the simple reason that cities do not collect property taxes from houses of worship, nor any other kind of tax.
Furthermore, churches especially tend to occupy choice urban and suburban real estate because when towns were founded, one of the very earliest buildings to be erected was a church, almost always several churches of different denominations. In every city and town in America you will find churches sitting on what is now some of the most valuable land there.
Now that the Supremes have given the Constitutional Seal of Approval to seizing private real property for any reason whatsoever, crony capitalism has become likewise Constitutionally protected. Just follow the money in the Kelo case - I have no doubt that a substantial amount made its way from the developer to the city officials who pushed the property condemnation through.
Don’t think for a moment that churches’ memberships have too much political clout for them to be victimized by greedy governments and on-the-take city officials. First, we are talking about government, which now has an unlimited capacity to take what it wants, coupled with officials’ access now to enormous amounts of financial support from corporations who want land on the cheap.
Second, congregations do not have political clout, nor do denominations as a whole. Example: almost every Christian denomination in Tennessee (except the Catholics) joined to defeat passage of a state-lottery amendment here in Tennessee back in 2000. Many synagogues and several mosques also worked against the proposed state lottery.
The lottery won in a walk because huge numbers of church-going, synagogue- and mosque-attending voters voted in favor of it. That churches are politically active or powerful as churches is simply a myth. A state senator and a state representative both told me after the lottery passed that it was now crystal clear to them and every other legislator that church pronouncements about matters before the legislature could be wholly ignored. Said the senator rather bluntly, “You’ve just proven that you can’t deliver votes. There’s no reason for me to listen to you.”
Mark my words: churches are next.
Update: TTLB has a linkfest on Kelo. Technorati’s links page is here.
Comments policy
16 queries. 0.616 seconds
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Eminent domain abuse
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:41 pm
A majority of americans own homes. I would guess that voters are more than average in home ownership. I expect that legislation will be passed in most jurisdictions taking away the power to condemn for private gain.
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:58 pm
I fear you are correct. And I can think of so many that are vulnerable.
I’m pleased to find your site Don and will visit often.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:05 pm
I cannot speak to the church issues, but there are this very evening a lot of Mayors throughout this country drooling re: their rebuilding projects.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:56 pm
And after churches perhaps our politicians should look at copyrights and patents. They could generate lots of revenue from that.
It’s disgusting.
June 24th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Say Goodbye to Property Rights
Well. SCOTUS ruled in Raich earlier this year that growing something on your own property for private use is “interstate commerce,” thus rendering the production of any small fungible item, no matter how local its intended use, fair game for…
June 24th, 2005 at 2:20 am
TO: Donald Sensing
RE: On the Target List
“It’s not our homes that are most at risk despite this case. It’s America’s churches, synagogues and mosques.” — Donald Sensing
Homes, property-owning businesses, churches/synagogues/mosques, they are all on the target list. And the targeting will be accomplished by the City Fathers near you. It will all depend on their [im]moral integrity. Three out of seven of mine are in the real estate business. I see signs touting their ownership of major development projects downtown. That’s gotta change. Especially NOW.
We’ve been watching, with considerable anxiety, the demolition of an old stately home and the building of a concret monstrosity in it’s place. Regional Building says it’s supposed to be a larger home, but it sure as hades looks like an office building that would support a bunch of doctors.
It’s zoned for residential. And we all watch the paper for public notices that it is going before the Zoning Board. But that’s likely to be moot now. The city can just seize it, pay the owner a bunch of money, sell it to the nearby hospital and be done with it in light of this ruling. The public is pretty much locked out.
The challenge now is for (1) impeachment of these justices who have no regard for homeownership, (2) getting this ruling overturned, and (3) taking charge of the city councils to prevent miscreants from doing in your town what they are doing in New London.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Have you called YOUR Congressional delegates?]
June 24th, 2005 at 2:25 am
TO: Ashish Hanwadikar
RE: Eminent Domain
“Eminent domain abuse.” — Ashish Hanwadikar
Eminent Domain is when the government seizes property for government purposes; highways, etc.
This is seizing property in order to give it to some other party. The only ‘government purpose’ is to increase their wallet. And we all know the typical politicians predilection for that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 24th, 2005 at 4:46 am
It’s not our homes that are most at risk despite this case. It’s America’s churches, synagogues and mosques.
LOL! While I won’t say “I wish!”, if they replaced them with Schools and Public Athletic Centers (like ancient Greek gymnasia) there would obviously be a net advantage to Society. Obviously though, that is not the intent.
The problem is one of Individual -vs- Society. The ruling misses the Constitutional Point not because it’s bad reasoning, but simply because the US Constitution doesn’t proscribe the conditions for city building. It doesn’t spell out the reality that Cities are unique entities. Is a City the “property” of its most powerful elites? Or is the “property” of its consensus constituency? Can a city be legally viewed as an Individual? Yes, through Incorporation.
The Constitution assumes what is best for the Individual is best for the Society and it spells out ways in which individuals are allowed to come together and implement their consensus ideas. That is why we have “Incorporation” laws. So that Corps can have the same political voice as individuals. Good or Bad, this is the basis for the ruling and it is a legal reality which the Const leaves up to legislative discretion.
Back to the “churches at risk” point though: If History shows us anything unequivocally, it is that Religion is the bane of both Individuals and Society. It sucks resources from both in return for its intangible and esoteric assurance that we’re OK or not. Religion (aka, astrology, christianity, islam, voodoo, judaism etc…) is a scam that gets treated with respect that it simply and empirically does not deserve. Despite that fact, the Const is quite clear that “no law shall be made respecting (its) establishment.”
So, how to deal with this blood-sucking leach of belief rationally and constitutionally?
“Houses of Worship”, contrary to the wing-nut reading of the US Constitution, are not immune to the law. They are abusive drains on society which must be taxed as surely as any Car Dealer, Bank or Fortune Teller’s shop. If they were, they would have nothing to fear from eminent domain rulings.
June 24th, 2005 at 5:05 am
Glenn says: “We’ll see.”
But we’ve seen already, where Cypress, CA, attmpted to seize a church for Costco.
And, what I expect as a foreshadow of things to come, the church was portrayed as the agressor in this situation:
Bloody Christians. Trying to keep their churches and all; demanding we institute a “theocracy” and give them special rights. Run them out of town!
June 24th, 2005 at 5:18 am
Run them out of town?
Or treat them like anybody else and demand they pay their share.
Whichever…
June 24th, 2005 at 5:23 am
Oh yah, and make sure those parking meters in front of their buildings are working as well. Like anyone else, they need to earn their tax breaks.
June 24th, 2005 at 6:39 am
Leaving aside the anti-religious bigotry and historical illiteracy, I fail to see how anyone can read the Bill of Rights and think that the Constitution assumes “what is best for the Invididual is best for Society.” If that where true, the Constitution would only need to have been one sentence. Something like “Congress, the President, and the Courts will do what is best of society.”
Regarding historical truths, the closest thing I have ever seen to a historical truth is,
“Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb”-Dark Helmet.
Adding lazy would make the quote more accurate.
June 24th, 2005 at 7:52 am
I believe it was Pres. Jackson who told the SCOTUS to go jump in a lake. That’s what needs to happen now.
9 people shold not have that power. The Pres. took an oath the defend the Constitution. He needs to start doing it.
June 24th, 2005 at 8:08 am
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin’ hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got ’til it’s gone
They paved paradise and put up a parkinglot.
June 24th, 2005 at 8:58 am
[…] es Churches in danger As if the decision wasn’t bad enough Donald Sensing has a scary thought: It’s not our homes that are most at risk despite this case. It’s Ame […]
June 24th, 2005 at 9:19 am
MBains has been hitting the Ayn Rand a little hard. I’d like to see him visit the church
I attend and tell the parishioners to their face what a drain they are to society. I’m sure
just a few hours spent with them would show MBains otherwise.
June 24th, 2005 at 9:27 am
TO: MBains
RE: Yeah?
“Religion (aka, astrology, christianity, islam, voodoo, judaism etc…) is a scam that gets treated with respect that it simply and empirically does not deserve.” — MBains
Tell me about it on the other side of the pale.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 24th, 2005 at 9:30 am
TO: Stephen Sensing
RE: Too Much Power
“9 people shold not have that power.” — Stephen Sensing
They were not given that power. They have absconded with it by the use of “judicial activism”.
“The Pres. took an oath the defend the Constitution. He needs to start doing it.” — Stephen Sensing
If he doesn’t, other people will. And it will likely get rather ugly.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 24th, 2005 at 10:49 am
First they came for the churches.
June 24th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Heck, I’ve already gotten the National Cathedral flattened.
June 24th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
TO: G. Hamid
RE: Flattening
“I’ve already gotten the National Cathedral flattened.” — G. Hamid
You used PhotoShop?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. They were going after the churches before this ruling. A few years ago, in California, the city had evicted a christian church in order to put in a Wal-Mart, or something like that. The church resisted, in court, and won. This will evict them.
I thought I had a citation, but I can’t find it anymore.
June 24th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
[…] nking Party members could have whatever they wanted, even if it belonged to someone else. Donald Sensing: If the purported intention of such property condemnation and seizure is incr […]
June 25th, 2005 at 2:55 am
Dear Sir:
I found your analysis excellent but you need to go further. There are jurisdictions and municipalities that would evict certain groups for reasons that have nothing to do with financial gain that stand in the same grouping as church’s on the secular Left’s hit list. Gun ranges, hunting preserves, the Boyy Scourts, how about unslightly trailer parks?
I see in Texas, NY, Washington and NY the commisiars are all ready geraing up to seize other people’s property. This is the end of America that I knew and loved.
June 25th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
I fear MBains may be overly optimistic in his belief that tax-paying churches would have “nothing to fear” from Kelo. As I understand the ruling, anyone who promises more money than whoever already lives or works somewhere may kick that person out and build the more profitable thing. Also, I think it was Costco, rather than Wal*Mart who tried to kick the Christian Church out of Cypress, CA. Costco supported Kerry in 2004.
Per Freddie at http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-will-it-take-to-sweep-kelo-into.html
“The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed.”
June 26th, 2005 at 9:48 am
TO: Charles R. Coombs
RE: Costco?
“I think it was Costco, rather than Wal*Mart who tried to kick the Christian Church out of Cypress, CA. Costco supported Kerry in 2004.” — Charles R. Coombs
Now that you mention it, I think you are correct.
A Roman Catholic friend, who favors Costco over Sam’s Club, which I favor, was ribbing me about the case. Something about razing the churches of the heretics in order to improve his shopping capabilities.
I’d forgotten that aspect. I think I’ll send a letter to the Denver City Council offering to build a multi-level parking facility on the site where a Roman Catholic cathedral stands near the state capitol. The congested city needs the parking and the city could definitely use the revenue.
I’ll CC him. He should get a chuckle out of that one.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What goes around, comes around.]
June 27th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Kevin Drum has an account of an earlier assault on a church (in Cypress, CA), just as you describe. It failed, but of course, that was before Kelo.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
[…] f the Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling - that the ruling would place houses of worship in more severe danger of eminent domain than any other kind of property. Today, Christianity Today catches up: […]
June 28th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Post-Kelo: Churches Are Especially Vulnerable
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, houses of worship - churches, synagogues, temples and mosques - may be most at risk of government seizure, warns Donald Sensing.It’s not our homes that are most at risk despite this case…
June 28th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Before the ink was dry on Kelo….
….the city of Freeport, TX began proceedings to seize private property so that developers could build an exclusive marina.With Thursday’s Supreme …
July 11th, 2005 at 8:31 am
[…] ease get a grip. I said on the day of the decision that houses of worship could wind up a primary targets for Kelo-inspired seizures. But the potential threat is not just to churches; it also include […]
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Hi! Nice site. Check site about glucophage - http://glucophage911.afraid.org
January 17th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
[…] ar a retail center, or simply not liked by the powers that be in the community? Post-Kelo, as predicted by many when the decision came down, it looks like your church could be vulnerable to a taking a […]
January 18th, 2006 at 11:10 am
[…] . He also links to a few bloggers who predicted that under Kelo the churches would be at risk. The Larsonian observes that churches without outreach may be particularly susceptible: When a chur […]