I was heartened to read this in today’s Patriot Post:
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Completely ignoring the words “public use,” last year the Supremes held that a city could forcibly take your home to build a privately owned shopping mall (Kelo v. New London). In
response, the House recently passed a bill that would overturn Kelo (no odds yet on whether the Supremes will let such a nefarious law stand, if indeed it becomes a law), and many states have considered bills that would, in effect, restore the Takings Clause to our jurisprudence. That is, if the government takes your home, it must be for a public purpose and they must pay for the right.Well, that sure got some folks in a tizzy. Turns out that these newfangled counterrevolutionary (read: constitutional) laws may cover a significant portion of land-use restrictions. These laws not only reinstate the public-purpose test, but they might also reinstate the just-compensation part. In other words, the government would actually have to pay for the right to prohibit you from using your land as anything other than a public park.
At the risk of sounding like 1960s radicals, we say “Right On!” Horror of horrors, paying when you take private property. Why, with this sort of potential collapse of the social order, it might soon be legal to eat junk food in New York City.
I’ve long thought that rent control and even zoning laws are an unconstitutional “taking”. I hope this trend catches on.