| Summary |
This article discusses the issues between public use and private wrongs. Public use refers to the use of private property by the government or its agents for a public purpose. Private wrongs are activities that are conducted on private property and result in a negative effect on the public.
The article explains that public use of private property is an important part of improving the lives of citizens and creating economic value for society. Private wrongs, on the other hand, can have a number of negative effects on the public, including environmental damage, diminished property values, and disruptions to nearby businesses.
The article goes on to explain the process of public use, which is subject to regulation by the government. This is to ensure that the public's best interests are preserved, especially when it comes to protecting private landowners from exploitation or abuse.
The article then examines the legal framework for evaluating public use and private wrongs. It explores the concept of takings, which can occur when the government uses private property for public use. In this case, the government must provide “just compensation†to the property owner. It also discusses the liability of private parties who engage in activities that cause a negative effect on public property or the public in general.
In conclusion, the article outlines the various issues and legal principles involved in public use and private wrongs. It notes that governments must ensure that public use of private property is not exploitative, and that private wrongs are properly addressed. The article also stresses the importance of providing “just compensation†to property owners when the government uses their property for public use, and the liability of private parties who engage in activities that cause a negative effect on public property or the public in general.
What is Public Use?
Public use is a legal term that refers to the power of the government to take private lands in return for payment. This power was established by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is also commonly referred to as eminent domain. This legal concept has become increasingly controversial in the past few decades, with many people opposing government taking of private lands or businesses for any purpose other than public use.The Definition of Public Use
In the United States, public use traditionally involves the taking of private land or property for public purposes, such as schools, roads, or parks, with the owner receiving just compensation. In modern usage, the term has also come to encompass other forms of government intervention, such as seizing property in order to facilitate economic development.The Role of Just Compensation
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth the principle that any private land or property may be taken for public use, with just compensation being provided to the owner for the taking of their property. Just compensation means that a fair market value of the taken property must be provided to the owner as compensation for the taking. This is intended to protect individuals from the government taking their property without providing any form of compensation.The Private Wrongs Doctrine
The Private Wrongs Doctrine is an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property may not be taken by the government unless it is for a public purpose. The Private Wrongs Doctrine holds that seizing property for a public purpose that only benefits a few individuals, or no individuals at all, is a private wrong and therefore not a legitimate public use. This doctrine was established by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005.The Impact of Private Wrongs
The Private Wrongs Doctrine has significant implications for the use of eminent domain. Private landowners now have more protections against the government taking their property. Additionally, the more stringent tests required by the doctrine ensure that public use is more narrowly defined and that the taking of private property is only for legitimate public purposes. As a result, private landowners are more likely to be compensated for their losses and the rights of individuals are more likely to be respected.The facts are brutally simple: Susette Kelo owns her modest home in New London, Conn. She wants to keep it. The city of New London wants to take it away from her. Mind you, there is not the slightest vestige of an iota of a scintilla of evidence that the affected area is a slum.
Under the city's plan, her house and a dozen other private homes would be demolished. The cleared land then would be leased for private development. If the city wins, and everything goes according to plan, the developers will make a potful, the city will tax the enhanced real estate, and Mrs. Kelo will be out on the street.
In case you arrived late for this exercise in despotic democracy, New London is invoking its power of eminent domain. The power is embedded in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It permits government to acquire private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. The power is an indispensable tool of civil government. It lets us build public streets and public highways, public schools and public libraries, public parks and public capitols.
The key words in all this are "public use." The Constitution does not authorize New London to take private property for public "benefit" or public "convenience" or for some inchoate public "purpose." For a century and a half the two words were precisely construed. Then came the landmark case of Berman v. Parker in 1954, perfectly exemplifying the maxim that bad cases make bad law. Here the Supreme Court unanimously approved the public condemnation and private redevelopment of a rancid slum in the southwest quadrant of Washington, D.C.
Justice William O. Douglas flew into flights of eloquence: "Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and crime and immorality. They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who live there to the status of cattle. They may indeed make living an almost insufferable burden. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which robs it of charm, which makes it a place from which men turn. The misery of housing may despoil a community as an open sewer may ruin a river."
Once Douglas was wound up, there was no stopping him. A legislative body, he decreed, may consider values that are "spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary." It is within the legislative power "to determine that a community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled." Then came the conclusion that struck some commentators, including this one, as indefensible:
"Property of course may be taken for redevelopment which, standing by itself, is innocuous and unoffending. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment stands in the way."
Thus began the crooked trail that led to Monday's oral argument before the Supreme Court. The Berman case concocted a piece of semantic legerdemain. Presto! "Public use" became "public purpose." A constitutional dam was fatally breached. Little by little, in thousands of cases across the country, courts have authorized seizures under the power of eminent domain.
The case of Susette Kelo provides an ideal opportunity for the Rehnquist court to deflate the gasbag eloquence of Justice Douglas 50 years ago. Chief Justice Rehnquist himself was too ill to attend Monday's oral argument (so was I), and Justice John Paul Stevens missed his plane back from Florida, which left Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to preside over a lively give-and-take. Two of my brother correspondents thought Mrs. Kelo's counsel had the better of it. We probably won't know the outcome until May.
Whatever may have been the slum-clearing merits of the Berman opinion of 1954, these have been offset by the subsequent erosion of property rights as old as Magna Carta. Every schoolboy knows the story. In 1215, a band of barons gathered at Runnymede. There they laid down an enduring principle of human rights: A peasant's humble home is his castle. Mrs. Kelo's innocuous and unoffending little home in New London is her castle. Those barons met on a meadow overlooking the Thames River of England. By nice coincidence, the Kelo house overlooks the Thames River of Connecticut. A good omen.
(Readers are invited to send dated citations of usage to Mr. Kilpatrick. His e-mail address is kilpatjj@aol.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
