John Stossel

Think your house is your castle? Our country's Founders thought so. They put three provisions into the Bill of Rights to protect it.

 But last week, the Supreme Court said the government can take away your house just because it thinks someone else could make better use of your home or business than you can.

 The justification? The Constitution does recognize that there are public needs, such as building roads, so vital the government must be able to take your land. It says the government may take property, but only for a "public use" and with "just compensation."

 The phrase at the center of last week's case is "public use." It's an important phrase, because it's supposed to mean that the government can only use force to take your property in order to do its job. The government, which is supposed to stop criminals from driving you off your land, isn't supposed to get to force you off your land just because some official thinks someone else will put the land to "better" use.

 I once brought ABC's cameras to a neighborhood in New Rochelle, N.Y., that politicians decided to flatten to make room for an Ikea furniture outlet. The mayor boasted that a new store would replace a "blighted" neighborhood. Blighted? It was a perfectly nice group of homes and businesses.

 I like Ikea stores. But let them build them on their own property.

 Why should homeowners be forced out? Why do the politicians get to decide? The people who lived in the neighborhood couldn't believe what was happening to them. As one woman said, "What freedom do we have when we have businesses that will just come in and say, 'Oh, you have to move'?" But businesses can't force anyone to move. Only government gets to use force; Ikea was just the favored business that day. The government had decided that selling furniture was a "public use": "urban renewal" that would be "good for the community."

 Said Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the libertarian law firm Institute for Justice, "It's always what the 'community' wants. The 'community' wants to be more upscale. It figures it can get there by sacrificing some of its members, forcing them to move when they don't want to." Fortunately, the New Rochelle homeowners were able to keep their property. Ikea and the politicians backed down after the publicity. 

 Donald Trump wasn't so easy. In the early Nineties, he wanted to expand one of his casinos in Atlantic City.

 Vera Coking was in the way. The elderly widow had lived in a house in Atlantic City for more than 30 years, and she didn't want to move. So New Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority sued to "acquire" Coking's property.

John Stossel

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at > To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at ©Creators Syndicate