Dear Editor,
On Sept. 24, an editorial opinion screamed
”
Inconsistency reigns in Gilroy.
”
The same day a related article by staff writer declared
”
Gilroy reverses unwritten policy.
”
They both got it wrong.
Dear Editor,
On Sept. 24, an editorial opinion screamed “Inconsistency reigns in Gilroy.” The same day a related article by staff writer declared “Gilroy reverses unwritten policy.” They both got it wrong.
In defense of the Gilroy City Council, it is safe to say that a majority understand the difference between a taking of property under an RDA with all its related abuses, and possible normal taking of private property for public use, such as a city cultural center.
The editorial further stated that the California Constitution spells out that “… Governments can force sale of land at just compensation if it’s for the greater good of the community.” That wording is not found in my copy of the same Constitution which reads in part Article I, Section 19, “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, etc.” The words “greater good” does not appear there.
Those capable men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, (after which the California Constitution was modeled), were well aware that any taking of private property by governments was a greater danger to the hard-won liberties of the people. After all, that is what kings have done for centuries. That was one of the many reasons they had opposed the British king. They were not about to let a democratic majority do the same thing. They were designing a constitutional republic.
Realizing that there could well be many instances when the public needs might require that taking of private property, they severely restricted and limited that power so that property could be taken when it was put only to public use.
Over the last half of the last century, under the instigation of questionable federal government legislation, many, if not most, states were encouraged to engage in redevelopment activity. That in turn led to legislation and court cases which both encouraged and promoted that taking of private property from some individuals and giving the same to other private individuals.
A case point was that of the citizens of Poletown, Michigan, in 1981, who had their homes bulldozed to make way for a General Motors plant. The Michigan Supreme Court declared the action to be constitutional at the time. Since then the case has been quoted nationwide man times to justify similar takings. Recently, that Michigan Supreme Court has reversed itself. Small consolation to those who lost their homes 23 years ago. This year, 2004, the Supreme Court of Connecticut allowed the city of New London to seize waterfront homes in order to replace them with a privately owned office building. Citing the Poletown case, the court said in part that it was for “a public benefit.”
What a difference a word makes. Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide whether to hear the case on appeal. The lives of every one of us will be affected by the decision for years to come. Stay tuned.
Jack B. Kazanjian, Gilroy
