[Mb-civic] Supreme Home Makeover By JOHN TIERNEY

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 14, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Supreme Home Makeover
By JOHN TIERNEY

WEARE, N.H.

When we reached Justice David Souter's home, a ramshackle old farmhouse
along a dirt road, Keith Lacasse explained his plans for it if he's voted
onto the town's Board of Selectmen in the election today.

The first plan, which Lacasse and his friends drew up right after hearing of
Souter's vote in the Kelo eminent-domain case last year, was for the town to
seize Souter's property and turn it into a park with a monument to the
Constitution. But then Lacasse, a local architect, switched to an idea
proposed by an activist from California: turning it into the Lost Liberty
Hotel.

"Actually, it would be more like a bed and breakfast," Lacasse said. "We'd
use the front of the house for a cafe and a little museum. There'd be nine
suites, with a black robe in each of the closets."

So far Souter has not joined the local debate on the proposal, something
that makes him fairly unusual in this country town near Manchester. The Lost
Liberty Hotel has dominated the campaign debate and the pages of The Weare
Free Press. There seem to be two main factions: those who oppose the Kelo
decision and want to punish Souter by taking his property, and those who
oppose the Kelo decision but want to leave him alone.

"I don't agree with the decision, but I love David to death," said Matt
Compagna, a mechanic. "When our barn burned down, he was there at 3 a.m.
helping us. Coldest night of the year. He's a decent man. Why should he lose
his house even if he made the wrong decision?"

The answer from Lacasse and a fellow candidate running on the same issue is
that taking the house would serve a larger "public use" ‹ the same reason
given in the Kelo decision for taking people's homes in New London, Conn.
That 5-to-4 decision set off a revolt in Weare and across the country
because of the way Souter and the rest of the justices in the majority
interpreted the Fifth Amendment phrase.

Most Americans have the traditional idea that property can be taken for
"public use" if it is actually going to be used by the public as, for
example, a road or a park. But that definition gradually expanded over the
last half-century as the Supreme Court ruled that property could be seized
and turned over to private parties if there were special circumstances and
an overriding public benefit, like eliminating "blight" in a poor Washington
neighborhood or breaking up an land oligopoly in Hawaii.

The Kelo case, however, went way beyond those decisions, allowing the town
of New London to seize property that wasn't blighted simply because it
thought it could find a developer to make better use of the property. It was
a new version of the field of dreams theory: if you tear it down, they will
come.

"The Kelo decision wasn't compelled by legal precedents," says Richard
Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. "It wasn't a case of
eliminating blight or breaking up an oligopoly. There was no precedent for
kicking people out of their private homes just to warehouse the land for
future development."

The Kelo case was an opportunity for the justices to put limits on the use
of eminent domain ‹ and to look at how the power had been abused since
cities had begun using expanded powers of eminent domain half a century ago.
As Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissenting opinion in Kelo, "In cities
across the country, urban renewal came to be known as 'Negro removal.' "

Activists of all political stripes have been fighting to preserve
neighborhoods and complaining that eminent domain is unfairly destroying
homes and displacing small businesses to make room for large retailers and
corporations.

If Souter and the other four concurring justices had ever thought that they
could be lose their own homes, they would probably have paid more attention
to the critics of eminent domain. I doubt that they would have worked so
hard to reinterpret the Fifth Amendment. But as much as I admire Lacasse's
plans for the Lost Liberty Hotel, at this point I think it would be
overkill.

However the vote comes out today, Lacasse and his allies have succeeded in
embarrassing Souter, and that's enough. Compagna is right: a judge should be
able to make a bad or unpopular decision without losing his home. But he
does deserve a reality check, and Souter's neighbors have obliged.

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top