The Questioner

While some of the articles, essays, and other pieces included here argue a particular position, others simply inform, color, or illuminate the field of dialogue.*

        Abortion
        Capitalism vs. Democracy
        The Constitution-relevancy
        The Death Penalty/Capital Punishment
        Free Will   (Thesis - "The Ecology of Choice")
        Genetically Modified Food
        Gun Control
        Honesty
        Less Government
        Media Balance/Bias
        Standardized Education
        Voting And Change

To submitan essay of approximately 750 words, either opening a new topic or providing an alternative view to one already appearing here, simply e-mail as text (Submissions atthequestioner com -no attachments please). All opinions are welcome, but not all can be published or acknowledged.

Comments and suggestions are always welcome.  Comments at thequestioner com  Thank you.

Among the many slogans used by conservative propagandists, the “wise uses” and “trickle down economics” of public disinformation, one that seems to have fallen from right-wing favor is the wail of unconstitutional “takings”.

“...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” says the Fifth Amendment.  Used to be that Republicans would parade out some put-upon homeowner whom the EPA wouldn’t let backfill his backyard wetland.  We were to rise up indignant at this un-American taking of property rights, taking little notice of the drooling developers chuckling behind the larded curtain of campaign contributions.

Turns out that a community or society having some input in property usage affecting the environmental commons is not necessarily a “takings”.  Think zoning.  But what really are two “takings” may serve to explain why Republicans have largely shelved this label.

The book “The Milagro Beanfield War” is the story of a proposed resort development and stubborn locals.  The understory details how the resort would drive up property values and resultant property taxes, driving out the long time residents.  The realization of this dynamic stirs the community to action.

Many Americans are faced with that same situation.  What happens to property ownership in this country when we combine market-based growth policies with market value property taxes?  The answer is that over time, real property is structurally transferred from those with less liquid wealth to those with greater.  The capitalist mechanism for this is desirability, aka demand, or simply, how much the collective somebody wants your land.

What are the long-term consequences?  Land redistribution adds one more destabilizing and undemocratic social condition on top of other Republican wealth redistribution initiatives such as continuous tax cuts for the rich paired with cutbacks in public infrastructure spending and services for the middle and modest classes.  Seems almost trickle-downish, if not downright feudal.

Some might argue that taking property from the poor and giving it to the rich is not the same as taking it for “public use” as proscribed in the constitution.  However, the second of the two real structural takings in America shows that government itself has defined such private-private transfers as “public use”.  The second major takings in America is the process of condemnation by eminent domain.

It began as the dubious practice of taking private land for an urgently needed public purpose, such as a reservoir or sanitation plant.  It evolved into the practice of seizing land at questionable prices to be sold to or, depending on tax breaks, essentially handed over to private commercial entities in the name of “urban renewal”, “blight”, “growth” or some such.  Now, even those pretexts have been discarded and replaced with the simple rationalization, “tax revenue differential” where, if in the municipality’s estimation an alternative use can be suggested that produces a few dollars more in tax revenue, start packing your bags.
 
But how do we determine the real societal value of use and ownership?  If, instead of a Wal-Mart, we had small, locally owned shops, who could say that latter use would be worth less to the community, even if it produced less tax revenue?  Is there a connection between the declining level and quality of public life, the graying of the colors and the impoverishing of the richness of our communal society, and the faceless chains and franchises being encouraged to replicate themselves into the horizon of a subdued, post-modern America.

It’s hard to know the answers, regardless of the surface dollars and cents.  What we do know is, if a process can be abused, say by a developer or retail corporation influencing local planners to help it obtain a desired piece of property, it will be abused.  And the loser is the land or small business owner, the community, and the right of the people to be secure in their houses and effects, per the Fourth Amendment.

People are beginning to awaken to the unfairness of these practices, and are demanding changes.  Perhaps the newfound Republican silence on “takings” reflects the realization that the sword is now double-edged. And, considering their dependence on big box retailers, industrialists and developers, they’re realizing that the back edge is a whole lot sharper.

Harv Teitelbaum