Power of eminent domain can devastate minority groups

Editor,

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution endows the power of eminent domain - the use of power by a government or an institution authorized by that government to acquire private property from citizens without their consent. Whoever is taking this property is required by this amendment to provide "just compensation." This is usually interpreted to mean "market value," which may or may not be a fair amount.

This is an aspect of our constitutional system that has vexed me since my introduction to it, as it stands in stark contrast to what I feel is the proper role of our government. One of the inherent problems of "just compensation" is that oftentimes the group determining what is a "just compensation" and the group acquiring the property is one-in-the-same. I wish to stress that this is not purely a rural issue, as the Supreme Court has upheld the power of authorized groups to take private property from urban citizens on the sole basis that it is for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues (Kelo v. City of New London). As I understand that, if Wal-Mart is going to make more taxable income than your business, the city is within its power to put in a new Wal-Mart on your land.

I will be candid about my personal biases, as I genuinely wish to have my anxiety over this issue relieved either by a logical explanation of why it is to my benefit to proscribe to a system that wields this large power or by having my unease affirmed so that proper measures may be taken to alter the power toward one that is more appropriate. I come from a rural background, and many of my past and current associates are farmers, ranchers and American Indians, most of whom feel very skeptical of the prospect of a government being capable of arbitrarily confiscating private land. Also, I do not come from a wealthy background, and my opinions are seldom in the majority. As such, my trust in a system that, in practice, favors the wealthy and the urban majority to give my interests equal consideration is scant at best. Though I do not own land, I do hope to do so one day, and the idea that I could have it stripped from me simply because the feds want a new military base, the state wants a new highway, the city wants a new power plant or the railroad wants to lay more track is very disturbing. I hold the view that my property is just that: my property. Legally, nothing could be farther from the truth.

I am fairly familiar with the Supreme Court precedent on eminent domain, and I accept that it is legitimate under our legal system. However, it is in stark contrast to what I feel are American - or at least my - values. Essentially, I own my property at the allowance of the various tiers of government. It is a privilege that may be revoked at a whim, and my say in the matter counts only as much as my single, minority vote. I will grant that this power is not always used with malice in mind, however programs that benefit a majority can and do have devastating effects on the minority, who may have deep social and cultural roots to their land and lifestyle.

Though we live in a majority rules system, it is important not to forget that our country is composed also of minority groups who oftentimes have interests that must also be protected.

Oliver Newkirk

UNM student