Dear Editor:
In theory our law says the government will compensate us for taking our property, but in practice? Not always.
Good intentions undoubtedly underlie the anti-growth initiative, but I think that old ranchers and farmers would rather die now than await what is in store if it is enacted. Just ask the hundreds (or is it thousands) of seniors and retirees who own land near Lake Tahoe.
While both the state and federal constitutions promised them compensation for government taking their property rights, they got nothing. Not a penny, despite prosecuting their rights all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year’s decision by our highest court shows the difference between the theory and the practice.
We need to learn from our history.
At common law it was said, “Be it ever so humble, a man’s home is his castle.” But it also said, “The king can do no wrong.” If the tyrant wanted your home, well, tough luck.
Despite promises and good intentions of the anti-growth initiative’s proponents, I think it’s time for a reality check.
Starting with Magna Carta in 1215, individual property rights advocates fought a bloody, uphill battle against overwhelming odds, culminating with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, which includes the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of compensation for government taking. Our forefathers had British redcoats quartered in their houses and barns, eating their foodstuffs, taking everything they had, and so they decided that the United States’ citizens would never suffer that again without getting paid for what was taken.
The California constitution guarantees “just compensation” for government taking, and in 1982 the California Supreme Court made it clear that the taking must be for public, not private, use in City of Oakland vs. Oakland Raiders. So much for theory.
In practice our constitutionally protected property rights are gutted, just like those of the Oriental landowners (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, etc.) here in California by enactment of the first California initiative, The California Alien Land Law of 1911, which withstood constitutional challenges until World War II was over.
Last April’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, shows us that the tyrant’s rule has not changed much in 787 years. A majority of the justices held that California local government did not have to pay landowners when taking their property rights.
Will we learn from history?
Eighty years ago Mr. Justice Holmes warned us about berserk government: “We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change.”
Did we learn anything from the great dissenter? No, according to Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the dissenting opinion for the minority in last year’s decision. Those of us naive enough to trust our government are in for a rude awakening. Forsaking your neighbors’ rights is a dangerous precedent when your turn comes.
The tyrant knows that he does no wrong. He and his vassals will take your neighbors’ property rights today, and whose will they take tomorrow?
Is it time, once again, to take the tyrant down, once again? Or will we let him take our neighbors’ homes, and whatever else he desires?
Joe Thompson
Tres Pinos
