Kelo decision bad
for minorities?

A black organization that advocates entrepreneurialism and personal responsibility has slammed the recent Supreme Court decision allowing a city to seize residents’ homes for private development, saying the action could lead to an urban housing shortage that could affect minorities, the poor and young families.

Project 21 fears the decision, combined with “anti-growth home development restrictions,” could severely affect the housing stock in U.S. cities.

“Opposition to the practice of taking private property for business interests brought together the NAACP and Justice Clarence Thomas,” noted Project 21 member and WND columnist Mychal Massie. “If even they can agree on the importance of private property protections, it’s utterly astonishing to me that others can so blatantly put so many at risk to favor wealthy private interests.”

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the government of New London, Conn., to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for “public use,” such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

Project 21 noted that in his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the decision would likely result in new urban renewal projects that have historically displaced minorities, the elderly and the poor.

According to the group’s statement, Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams – who praised the court’s decision – “is expected to evict small businesses and homeowners later this year to build a new, privately held baseball stadium.”

Project 21 criticized “smart growth” building restrictions that also limit the availability of housing for the poor and young families.

“Without question, this is the most abusive act of government aided and abetted by the Supreme Court in the history of our republic,” added Massie. “The bedrock of a free republic is the ability of its citizens to own property without fear of government seizure or constraint. With this ruling, our citizenry has been rendered vulnerable.”

Related stories:

Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?

Property battle heads to states

High court’s property decision stirs anger

Court rules cities can seize homes