A Rallying Cry?

From the Chicago Tribune: There's No Such Thing As Home, Sweet Home

So, here's the irony: A liberal Supreme Court now makes possible the destruction of human-scale neighborhoods, with their ma-and-pa stores and affordable housing, in order to build despised, but revenue-generating, shopping malls and office parks--usually at the expense of poor people.

As O'Connor said in her strongly worded dissent: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. 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."

How have we gotten to this point, where conservative judges are standing up for persons with fewer resources and liberal justices are backing the play of the powerful and influential? Perhaps the cynic would say it's because liberals salivate over any chance to enlarge government power, and because conservatives are willing to go to any lengths--even to backing the little guy--to advance property rights.

The more important question, though, is: Is it right? The court has denied homeowners a constitutional protection against assaults by out-of-control local government. In response, those wishing to protect the little guy will have to be more vigilant at the local level, and ultimately fight to replace those elected officials who don't respect the basic right of domicile.

Or, better yet, to replace the Supreme Court justices who endorsed this assault.

Well, this cynic might disagree with the writer on some specifics (e.g. name a way in which the conservatives of this Court have "advanced" property right an iota,) but there is a much broader area where consensus is the rule. As things exist today, there is no way to resist the forces of "central planning" that will be deciding to rip the heart out of neighborhoods for the benefit of the already wealthy. What I'd ask my liberal friends to do is imagine, as proposed by reader Walt in the comments, how they would feel if working class people were being driven from their homes for the purpose of putting in a Wal-Mart on their land. They would be outraged, right? Now, ask yourself if it is in principle any different if instead of a Wal-Mart they put in a Whole Foods, a Bed, Bath & Beyond or a Crate & Barrel?

Another point to remember is that suburban areas, which most liberals despise as soul-less cultural deserts (and they have a point), were not the product of "rampant capitalism" but of central planning. The post-World War II era of the suburbs was clearly the product of Levittown syle social engineering, and to think it was anything other is to engage in a rather massive case of self-delusion. Real urban renewal has always been neighborhood based, the work of countless individuals that make homes for themselves and their families and who band together to stabilize their area more and more and attract new neighbors. "Central planning" isn't involved. You allow people to create their vision of a good neighborhood for themselves. If you have seen any of the great urban neighborhoods in cities all across the country, you should know they are damn good at doing it themselves. We don't need to steal their homes away fom them to prove that some bureaucrat could do it better. There is already a long track record proving that they cannot.