Small Town News

Strengthen private property; vote "yes" on Proposition 11

---

When it comes to Proposition 11 as you cast your Texas ballot, just vote "Yes"!

Here are four reasons:

1. The tradition of American government has been to protect life, liberty and property. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "No person shall be. . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

2. Texas has a strong history of upholding private property rights going back to Article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution. It reads, "No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person."

3. The federal government, through a 2005 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Kelo v. New London, significantly expanded the breadth of what constitutes "public use" under the Fifth Amendment takings clause "reflecting our long standing policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field." The Court ruled that Su-zette Kelo's property could be taken against her will under a Connecticut statute for economic development purposes unrelated to government functions.

4. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was made applicable to the states with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. While Texas and other state governments cannot afford less protection for property rights of private citizens than the federal government does under the takings clause, state governments can, and in light of the Kelo decision, ought to, provide more.

Proposition 11 on this year's ballot reads, "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature 's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."

Both our federal government and our state and local governments have historically had the authority to take private property for public use if, according to the U.S. Constitution "just" compensation is paid or according to the Texas Constitution, "adequate" compensation is made. These laws have been well settled.

The Kelo decision greatly expanded "public use" or purpose to include economic development. Since a state constitution can afford more protection but not less protection than the federal government, Proposition 11 rightly retains the right of the state to take private property under the power of eminent domain for traditional public uses but prudently restricts such a taking for "economic development" purposes.

Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo more aptly characterizes our nation's heritage than the majority opinion. She wrote, "Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote: 'An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority .... A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean ... [A] law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it."

She went on, "Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded-i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public-in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property - and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent."

Like the right to life and liberty, the right to property pre-dates human laws. As Frederic Bastiat rightly states in his essay on Political Economy, "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property."

Vote to strengthen private property rights. Vote "Yes" on Proposition 11.

Peter Johnston, an East Bernard resident, earned a history degree from Cornell University and is a former high school history teacher.



Copyright 2009 East Bernard Express, East Bernard, Texas. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from SmallTownPapers, Inc.

© 2010 East Bernard Express East Bernard, Texas. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from DAS.

More from East Bernard Express