Tyranny of the majority

You’ve got a house. You’ve put a lot of hours painting, redecorating, repairing, and remodeling. It’s an emotional as well as financial investment.

You’ve got kids. It’s the only house they’ve known. They grew up finding Easter eggs in the corners of rooms and playing games in the backyard.

But the town council has decided that your land is a prime location for a “new urban” development, complete with upscale condos, a fru-fru coffee shop, and a clothing “boutique.”

You’ve got property rights on your side, but according to the Supreme Court, they’ve got eminent domain.

Apparently, it’s up to elected officials whether or not there’s a better public use for your land than you using it. While there’s a long history of using this power for railroads, highways, and other mass projects (even privately owned ones), the decision leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

in a minority opinion, Sandra Day O’Conner wrote that, “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

In Minneapolis, a largely poor, African American community was razed to make way for Interstate 94 several decades back. At least that was a public works project. The development in this decision was to be primarily for the benefit of private companies (even if it does raise the tax base).

I’m sure there’s someone with a snappy rejoinder that sums this up, but I’ll just stay this decision stinks.