Reverse Robin Hood
In a constitutional republic, such as the United States, does the government have a right to take your house and land? It may surprise some of you that yes, the government can take your property and, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, that they can even give it to another person.
Emperors and Kings had always held the power to take the land of citizens but, after the Magna Carta and through the Age of Enlightenment, many nations gradually moved away from the divine right of kings toward a basis in law. Thus the question arose, when and how the government could take your house and land. The first reference in legal literature occurred in 1625 and used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) declared that the state may seize property but “is bound to make good the loss.” But, what if someone doesn’t want to leave and isn’t interested in the money?
For those of us in the United States, the only mention of this power is in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution where it states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is commonly referred to as the “Takings Clause.”
Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage is the title of a book by Jeff Benedict. The movie adapted from it and released in 2017 goes by the shorter title, Little Pink House. In 1997 the actual home stood at 8 East Street in New London, Connecticut. The tiny Victorian waterfront house wasn’t fancy, but it had a nice view and suited the owner, Susette Kelo, just fine. While she worked to renovate her new home the Connecticut Governor, John Rowland (played in the movie by Aaron Douglas) and his staff created the New London Development Corporation and hired Charlotte Wells (played by Jeanne Tripplehorn)to lead it. Together, with the governor, they planned to redevelop an area of low-income houses near a sewage treatment plant into a modern commercial center complete with a luxury hotel, a health club, high-end condos, and a new Pfizer drug plant. The economic redevelopment would be transferred to the various businesses and bring in significantly more tax revenue than the modest older homes, including the renovated pink home of Susette Kelo. The problem was she didn’t want to sell her home.
The movie is directed by Courtney Balaker and follows the facts fairly closely. Since the movie was released over twenty years ago I hope there is no need for a spoiler alert.
The case, Kelo v City of New London, went all the way to the Supreme Court. For centuries governments had taken property to build roads, schools, hospitals, and other public projects. However, could the taken property be given to an individual or company for the purpose of generating greater tax revenue? In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said yes. Kelo lost her case and her home.
The four dissenting justices called this expansion of the traditional taking power a reverse Robin Hood, where property was taken from the poor and given to the rich. They also believed that this would become the norm, not the exception. However, prior to the Kelo decision, eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development and as of last year, a total of 45 states have enacted laws, either prohibiting or limiting transfers to companies for the sake of tax revenue.
The nine people who sit on the Supreme Court are human and very capable of making bad decisions. The Kelo verdict was one of those bad decisions. Both the legal case and the movie raise awareness of the power of eminent domain and its possible abuse. The movie is easily available for purchase or streaming. I recommend watching it.
