|
|
|
Jewish World Review August 5, 2005 / 29 Tammuz, 5765 A Left-Right coalition for property By Rich Lowry
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Rep. Maxine Waters probably won't take her place among the great
economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as a conservative
hero. Actually, she never will. But the famously fire-breathing
left-wing congresswoman from Los Angeles has emerged in recent weeks
as one of the nation's most outspoken defenders of property rights.
"Government should be in the business of protecting private
property," she told me in an interview, sounding every bit a member
of the free-market group The Club for Growth. "Private property is
precious in America."
What has galvanized Waters and a surprising left-right coalition
in defense of private property is the Supreme Court's instantly
notorious Kelo decision in June saying government can use its
eminent-domain power to take property from one private owner and
give it to another. The Constitution says eminent domain — used to
force the sale of property — must be exercised in cases involving
"a public use," a phrase the court has stretched to encompass any
private purpose that will produce more tax revenue. Almost
immediately, Waters was on the House floor denouncing the decision,
part of a backlash that has dozens of states considering tighter
rules in how they use eminent domain.
Waters is a longtime scourge of eminent domain. A few years ago
the L.A. Unified School District wanted to take a park and private
homes in the community of South Park to build a new school (which at
least is a legitimate public use). Waters made it clear that if
eminent domain were used, the residents, many of them low-income,
would appeal it property by property, holding up the process for
years. "We backed them off," she says. If anyone is trying to grab
your home, you could do much worse than have Waters — whose public
mood seemingly fluctuates between outraged and irate — on your
side.
She is acting on a crucial insight — the right to property is
the most important check on governmental power and abuse, especially
for the poor and vulnerable. The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People filed an amicus brief in the Kelo case
arguing against expanding eminent domain and recalling that it was
often used in 1960s "urban renewal" projects to dispossess black
property owners — "'urban renewal' was often referred to as 'Negro
removal.'" Indeed, the naked logic of the Kelo decision is to take
property from working- and middle-class people who aren't in a
position to build big-box stores, casinos or condos and give it to
wealthier interests, who can create more tax revenue and inherently
have more political influence. Poor property owners usually don't
have the wherewithal to fight back. "I think they'll just be run
over," Waters says.
Congress is considering denying federal funds to support any
projects that involve taking property for private use, and Waters is
supporting two of the Republican-sponsored Kelo backlash bills. "I'm
working with people I've never worked with before," she says.
"It's not a partisan issue at all," explains Dana Berliner of
the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, which is leading
the crusade against the abuse of eminent domain and maintains a Web
site (www.castlecoalition.org) devoted to the cause. "Everyone
either owns a home or hopes to own a home, and nobody likes the idea
that their home could be taken away from them because someone
wealthier wants it." She says that the court has done the
property-rights cause an unintentional favor by highlighting takings
for private use that have been going on for a long time without much
public notice.
The court has also got Maxine Waters' back up, which is never
advisable.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005 King Features Syndicate |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
