The aftermath of Kelo and its lesson for health care

A few years ago, the city of New London, Connecticut, sought to seize the land of Suzette Kelo and others in her neighborhood (with compensation), to clear it, and then to open it to development by other private entities to obtain more tax revenues. The houses to be destroyed were habitable, and the area was not blighted. Kelo and some of the others had lived in those houses for years, sometimes for a couple of generations.

The residents challenged what they saw as an abuse of the city’s eminent domain power, as the properties were not condemned for a traditional “public use,” such as a highway or a school. Instead, the properties were given to others for what the city claimed was a “public purpose,” a higher tax base. The challengers deemed this a violation of the Constitution’s takings clause, but the Supreme Court eventually held against them.

One of the beneficiaries of the city’s actions was Pfizer Corp., which was building a facility there and wanted to have better and more upscale surroundings, including commercial and residential development. Ten years after the initial condemnation move, the homes have been razed, but the property is still undeveloped. Worse, Pfizer has withdrawn, closing its research facility and moving those jobs to a city across the river from New London. Cosmic justice for the foolish government of New London. As Ed Morrissey opines,

“The Kelo decision — which was not a radical departure by any means, but the nadir of a slow trend of hostility towards private property — assumed that the decision about the best use of private property by private entities was better off being made by the government.  That insulted the entire notion of private property and put individual liberty in jeopardy….Instead of having homeowners on that property, paying taxes and providing stability, the city now has an empty lot and a ton of political baggage.  The biggest lesson is that private owners should have the benefit of deciding for themselves the best private use of their land — primarily to bolster the rule of law and the concept of private property that lies at the heart of our personal liberty, but also because government is a lot more likely to muck it up.”

This is an eery and depressing glimpse into the future of government control over health insurance/care.