Own a nice home in a good area? Don't bother to settle in, if a corporation or developer might want to build on your land. The Supreme Court declared that it's perfectly alright for your local government to take your property away and give it to someone they feel can generate more tax dollars or jobs from the site, in a stunning blow to individual rights last week. Better start schmoozing with your local politicians, if you want to keep your home. They have the power to take it away from you at any time.

The concept of "eminent domain" has been with us from the start, limited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The guaranteed right to own a piece of land was the prime reason many immigrants came to America in the first place, fleeing countries where all land was seen as belonging to the government. In America, the government could only take your land for public use... until now.

What is "public use?" Obviously, something owned and used by the public, like parks, roads, sidewalks and bridges. Public buildings, perhaps, like libraries, schools or courtrooms. "Public use" meant exactly that. Over the years, however, it's become more common to use eminent domain to take some property for less obviously-public usage, transferring it to private owners. Government officials have transferred abandoned or disused private property, mostly in inner cities, to developers with plans to rebuild and revitalise the area... developers who, no doubt, contributed to the election campaigns of those same local officials in many cases. Corrupt local officials have even gotten occupied and useful property condemned so it could be bought cheaply, on occasion. In most cases, tax revenues from those formerly "blighted" properties have increased -- how many tax dollars does an abandoned warehouse generate, anyway? -- and new jobs often created as well. So the purpose of eminent domain has slowly expanded from public USE to public BENEFIT, although that's not what the Constitution says. But no one cared about that -- corporations were making money, government was making money, and people were finding jobs.

All was right with the world... until some began to wonder why only blighted inner-city areas could be turned over to corporations for improvement. Why not more... desirable property? If increasing the tax revenue from a piece of land is a good thing, then why limit it to abandoned or disused land in areas no one wanted? So the city of New London, CT decided to turn over some 90 acres of prime waterfront property to private developers, who plan to build office complexes, upscale housing, and a marina on the site.

Unfortunately, 15 homes on part of that property belonged to people who didn't want to sell, for one reason or another. They disputed the use of eminent domain to force them to sell to a private corporation. So the homeowners took the case to court, represented at the Federal level by the Institute for Justice (a Libertarian civil liberties group). First the Connecticut Supreme Court, then the US Supreme court ruled that the mere possibility of generating higher tax revenues or jobs qualifies as "public use" under eminent domain, allowing local governments to forcibly transfer property from one private owner to another. The old saying, "a man's home is his castle" no longer applies in America. As in the countries our forefathers came here to escape, the government can dispose of "your" property as it sees fit.

The interesting twist on this case is how the US Supreme Court justices voted. The Liberals on the court -- John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, along with "wild card" Anthony Kennedy -- all voted in favor of government seizure of private property for transfer to another private owner. The Conservatives -- William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, joined by perennial swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor this time -- voted against the action. In her dissent, Justice O'Connor wrote, "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She also wrote, "As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result." Doesn't this decision show the Liberals squarely on the side of Big Government and greedy corporations against the "little people" trying to protect their homes? The mask slips from time to time.

All is not lost, however. Justice David Souter owns a home in the town of Weare, New Hampshire, as it happens. A company called Freestar Media, LLC has filed a bid with the local Board of Selectmen to seize that particular property and turn it into a revenue- and job-generating hotel. In a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer or Weare, Logan Darrow Clements affirms: "The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare." If three of the five selectmen agree, the Lost Liberty Hotel (featuring the Just Desserts Cafe and a permanent museum to the loss of freedom in America) will be built on the site of Souter's home. And I'll be packing my bags to visit the town of Weare. I hope the hotel has an indoor pool. And, of course, internet access.

To whom can Souter appeal to prevent the loss of his own home to the eminent domain decision he himself made? Perhaps the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act quickly introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) will help him retain his property. And if not... exactly where do the other Justices who voted with him live, again?