There are 12 simple words in Bill of Rights.
"...Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
That line within the Fifth Amendment has been the subject of increasing consternation in this country.
Does the phrase mean what it seems to say, or does it mean something else entirely?
Many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have come to view "public use" as "public purpose". That greatly broadens the power of the government to use eminent domain to take private property and use i for another purpose.
One traditionally argues that a road or a power line is ; "public use," but a shopping mall or any development that generates more tax money can be defined as a "public purpose." Governments across the country are now using the broad definition to clear areas for privat development.
The high court's Kelo v. City of New London decision last year energized property rights advocates. That decision upheld a plan by the Connecticut town to use eminent domain to condemn private property t< be turned over to a private developer.
Across the country, private property advocates startec pushing their state legislators to make sure they woul< not have a Kelo in their community.
Which brings us to the just-completed session of the West Virginia Legislature.
Lawmakers wisely—but not without a struggle—passe a bill limiting the use by government of eminent domain. Specifically, the bill is designed to prevent th government from taking property from one private owner and selling it to another private owner.
Yes, there are exceptions. For example, municipalities can still use eminent domain to seize property determined to be a slum or blighted area. But there a protections for property owners.
Municipalities fought to keep the power to clear out slum areas. You can't blame them for that. They see eminent domain as a tool to improve their communities, but property rights advocates in the legislature were out to make sure that power could not be abused.
Delegate Cindy Frich (R-Monongalia) helped shepherd the bill through the legislature. Frich, a conservative who is bent on protecting private property rights, calls the bill, "a better product that I expected.'
In her dissent from the Supreme Court's Kelo decision Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the court had eliminated "any distinction between private and public use property." She warned that the beneficiaries of the decision would likely be "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process."
Private property rights are fundamental value in this country. The promise of economic development provides temptation to erode those rights. That's a dangerous as well as unconstitutional course.
Fortunately, a majority of West Virginia lawmakers apparently realized that. Governor Manchin should sign the bill.