Without Just Compensation

One of the purposes of the Fifth Amendment is to protect private property from usurpation by government, declaring “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Under the law of eminent domain, the state can compel a property owner to sell his property to the government, but is required to justly compensate him for the loss. However, there are other ways in which the state can usurp private property rights without actually taking title to the property. When the state imposes regulations that deprive a citizen of the rights associated with private ownership of some or all of his property, it’s known as a “regulatory taking.”

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court found (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council) that the state is only required to provide just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for regulatory takings when the regulations deprive the owner of “all economically beneficial uses of the property.” That means the state can legally deprive a property owner of over 90% of the value of his property without owing any compensation. The “categorical rule,” as this has come to be known, is a boon for any state desiring to usurp control of private land without the burden of having to compensate the lawful owners.

Rarely can it be demonstrably proven that a property has been rendered devoid of all economic value. Nevertheless, in those rare cases where that actually can be proven, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted the states yet another loophole to exempt them from having to compensate property owners for their loss. The Court ruled that, even if the regulations imposed deprive the property owner of all economically beneficial use of the property, the state is not required to provide compensation if the regulatory restrictions can be justified by “background principles of nuisance or property law.”

Under common law, nuisance is understood to be an activity or condition that unreasonably interferes with the right of other property owners to the “quiet enjoyment” of their property, or interferes with public health or safety. However, the reference to “background principles of property law” is much more ambiguous, as these background principles vary from state to state. Each state defines its own property law, and the “background principles” are often implicit assumptions that have never been explicitly spelled out until they’re claimed by the state, challenged, and settled in court. Then they become established law.

One of these background principles is the “public trust,” which we discussed at length in Private Property vs. Public Trust. Between the categorical rule and the blanket exemption for background principles of state property law, the Supreme Court has begotten a brave new form of eminent domain that enables the states to completely bypass the just compensation protection set forth by our founding fathers in the Fifth Amendment. Some states, like Oregon, are taking full advantage of that, quietly and methodically working on a number of different fronts to lay a strategic foundation of “background principles” that expand their legal bases for usurping control of private land.

What sort of long-term agenda might a state have for establishing a legal framework for unprecedented regulatory takings without compensation? The answer may lie in the influence of the rich and powerful environmental lobbies, whose agenda is to prevent as much development, timber harvesting, mining, or any exploitation of natural resources as they possibly can. Some people think that’s a good thing. But, apparently, not enough to achieve the goals of the environmental lobby without establishing government control of any resource in which they have an environmental interest. Some people are OK with that. After all, the government must know what’s best for the people, and will always act in their best interest. Therefore, it stands to reason that the government should own all natural resources (including land, air, and water) and/or control how they’re used.

The concept of government versus private control is at the core of the ideological conflict between Marxism and capitalism. Private property is a fundamentally capitalistic concept, and that is what is under attack. So, the next time you hear about some new land grab by the state, and you think it’s somebody else’s issue because it doesn’t directly affect you, consider that there’s more at stake in this game than just land.

Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it Stumble It! add to del.icio.us

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/without-just-compensation/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. This is a tricky subject. Obviously some real estate is “common” but the problem is that Marxists take advantage of the compromise between “privatum” and “publicum.” I thought California was bad but, after 5 years here, I’m beginning to think we’re worse. The Marxists are pretty upfront (and obnoxious) in Cali but they’re well disguised as ordinary human beings in Oregon and damn sneaky.

  2. In large part, this is why I sold my last place. One of the things that attracted me to my former property was the large lot with a hillside back yard that ended with Vermont Creek (a tributary of Fanno Creek) flowing across the very bottom of the property. For a number of years, I managed the area for wildlife; permitting a small forest to grow back there and allowing snags to stand as wildlife habitat. Over 120 species of birds alone used the area, and even beaver moved in (requiring me to take steps to protect certain of the trees from their attentions).

    Then one fine day, Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services sent me about five pounds of dead tree material, informing me that they had placed an “environmental overlay” on my “sensitive” property. They went on to note that as a result of the overlay, I was prohibited from planting any non-native species within fifty feet of the creek.

    Vegetable gardens, of course, are composed entirely of non-native species – as was my lawn, which extended in some places to within fifteen feet of the banks of the creek. These were now illegal, as evidently they knew better how to manage my own land than did I.

    Over the next few years, they extended the overlay to such an extent that when the elevated deck on the back of the house needed replacement, I was told to submit renderings and $1200 to BES, who would then decide whether or not I could replace the deck. That was rather the final straw for me; I submitted no drawings and no money – I just went ahead and replaced the deck.

    Immediately thereafter, I put the place up for sale, selected a new site that I was fairly sure would not be subject to BES overlayment, and moved.

  3. The problem in Oregon is that these Marxists are so entrenched that even good people we elect, are stonewalled, marginalized, converted or driven out of Salem. I know of a well organized but very small grass roots group of constitutionally adept folks on a mission to educate the citizenry, and challenge corrupt law. It, and like organizations could be very effective over the long haul. How much time do we have?
    I personally feel the state’s private property tax is wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: