|
July 5, 2005 - June 27,
2005, will likely go down in U. S. history as the day when the American
People lost one of the unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Founding
Fathers. For to our detriment, it was on that fateful day that the Supreme
Court of the United States expanded its interpretation of a major tenet of
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Eminent domain is defined by my Webster's Dictionary
as "the power of the state to take private property for public use with
payment of compensation to the owner". This is granted by the Fifth
Amendment. Prior to last Monday, this power was relatively sparingly utilized
by various local, state and federal governments.
When a property was condemned under eminent domain,
it was typically done to acquire land along the right of way for building a
railroad or roadway, supplying water, or for the construction of a government
facility such as a post office or a prison. Additionally, urban renewal and
the destruction and replacement of slums with low cost housing, was effected
by various governments working in conjunction with private enterprises. In
all of these earlier limited instances, from the founding of our nation, each
eminent domain "taking" was done to benefit some direct need of the
American People at large.
Unfortunately, the recently handed down Supreme
Court ruling has expanded the Fifth Amendment's scope. Never before did a
private entity directly benefit from the "taking" of the property
of others through eminent domain. This ruling sets the stage for abuse. It
has the potential to harm a yet unnamed number of ordinary citizens to
primarily increase government tax revenues, and for the benefit of a few
private enterprises and individuals.
The Supreme Court's finding was the final decision
in the case of Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut. The city of New London
desired to condemn a number of well-maintained residences along its
waterfront, and transfer their title to a private company. The sixteen homes
were to be torn to the ground. In there place was to be built a series of
buildings including a hotel, condominiums, and office space. The Supreme
Court for the first time found that this eminent domain transfer to a private
entity fit within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the
majority of Justices. His vote in favor was joined by Justices Anthony
Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The
dissenters were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In rendering the opinion of the
majority of Justices, Stevens stated in part that "The city has
carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will
provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means
limited to -new jobs and increased tax revenues". He went on to state that, "...To effectuate
this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes
the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Because this plan
unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy
the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment".
The future of
countless Americans will now be exposed to suffering in the name of
"serving a public purpose" in a potential myriad of new fashions.
This, while simultaneously enhancing the wealth of some private enterprises
and individuals.
The day after
the decision was handed down I turned first to the New York Times for
additional information. Surprisingly, although the Times' front page listed
what they called major Supreme Court decisions on the "Ten
Commandments", "File Sharing", "Revealing Sources"
and "Domestic Violence", and devoted substantial first page space
to three of them, not a single word discussed Kelo vs. New London. This was
surprising because the New York Times doesn't normally devote extended
coverage to Supreme Court decisions. Yet, in my opinion, they omitted any
mention of the most important ruling while highlighting others of lesser
merit.
Later that week
a local newspaper, the Atlanticville, ran the headline, "High Court
Ruling A Blow To Residents". The Atlanticville described the potential
ramifications to a number of local residents who were involved in a similar
case. Their three-block neighborhood on Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, and
Seaview Avenue in Long Branch, NJ, was involved in a similar eminent domain
lawsuit. If they lose the case, which is now likely due to the Supreme
Court's decision, the 36 property owners will be forced to sell and vacate
their homes. Their dwellings will then be "razed and replaced by upscale
townhouses and condominiums." Upon learning of the Court's decision a
local resident stated "It is a decision that invites corruption. It puts
more power into the affluent and politically connected".
There are
numerous other similar cases pending across the nation that will be affected
by this high court decision! And, there are will likely be countless more to
follow.
When Eminent
Domain was earlier utilized the compensation for those who lost their
property was often at below market prices. The offer was typically presented
by the governing body involved. Frequently, the affected individuals could
not afford proper legal representation and thus were forced to take whatever
was offered. Others, who had sufficient capital to protect themselves, at
least could fight for their just compensation. This situation will not likely
change in the future, and those who do not have adequate funds to protect
their rights may suffer similar fates. As is often the case, those who will
be the most damaged have the least ability to defend themselves.
Tragically,
this decision opens the door for many people to be legally forced from their
homes. They now stand to suffer financially whenever government officials
determine that the "public good" will be better served if their
property is transferred into the hands of others.
Sandra Day
O'Connor wrote the Court's dissenting opinion. In part she stated that,
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,
but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are
likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the
political process, including large corporations and development firms".
One has to
wonder if Ms. O'Connor's surprise announcement a few short days later, of her
retirement from the Supreme Court after 24 years on the bench, was not
motivated by the direction that this decision is destined to take the country.
From her own words she must have been deeply disturbed by this decision. For
with it, the United States eliminated the ability of the average American to
protect him or herself while it sanctioned another group of "citizens
with disproportionate influence and power in the political process" to
take their property away from them.
It is
impossible to foretell how this unprecedented interpretation of the Fifth
Amendment will affect all of us. However, it is likely that as time passes
eminent domain will become more widely utilized to displace honest,
law-abiding Americans from their homes and property.
______________________________
By
: Dr. Richard
S. Appel
www.financialinsights.org
I
publish Financial Insights. It is a monthly newsletter in which I discuss
gold, the financial markets, as well as various junior resource stocks that I
believe offer great price appreciation potential.
Please
visit my website www.financialinsights.org where
you will be able to view previous issues of Financial Insights, as well as
the companies that I am presently following. You will also be able to learn
about me and about a special subscription offer.
CAVEAT
I
expect to have positions in many of the stocks that I discuss in these
letters, and I will always disclose them to you. In essence, I will be
putting my money where my mouth is! However, if this troubles you please
avoid those that I own! I will attempt wherever possible, to offer stocks
that I believe will allow my subscribers to participate without unduly
affecting the stock price. It is my desire for my subscribers to purchase
their stock as cheaply as possible. I would also suggest to beginning
purchasers of these stocks, the following:
always place limit orders when making purchases. If you don't, you run the
risk of paying too much because you may inadvertently and unnecessarily raise
the price. It may take a little patience, but in the long run you will save
yourself a significant sum of money. In order to have a chance for success in
this market, you must spread your risk among several companies. To that end,
you should divide your available risk money into equal increments. These are
all speculations! Never invest any money in these stocks that you could not
afford to lose all of
Please call the companies regularly. They are controlling
your investments.
FINANCIAL INSIGHTS is written and published by Dr. Richard Appel and is
made available for informational purposes only. Dr. Appel pledges to disclose
if he directly or indirectly has a position in any of the securities
mentioned. He will make every effort to obtain information from sources
believed to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness cannot be
guaranteed. Dr. Appel encourages your letters and emails, but cannot respond
personally. Be assured that all letters will be read and considered for
response in future letters. It is in your best interest to contact any
company in which you consider investing, regarding their financial statements
and corporate information. Further, you should thoroughly research and
consult with a professional investment advisor before making any equity
investments. Use of any
| 
