Private Property Rights Under Fire in Missouri

by James Burling and Timothy Sandefur>> James S. Burling is a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation who > represented Karl Thomas and Jerry Bray. Timothy Sandefur is a staff > attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, and author of the Cornerstone of > Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America.>> It's hard to top the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, which > enabled government officials to seize homes and businesses and transfer > the land to private developers who stood to profit by them.>> But Missouri has managed to make things worse. A state law allows > nonprofit organizations to take private land for their own private uses - > without paying the owners a dime. And on Feb. 7 the Missouri Court of > Appeals refused even to consider whether the law is constitutional.>> Passed in the 1990s, the little-known statute allows nonprofit > organizations to ask judges to condemn property if it has been unoccupied > for six months, if the taxes are delinquent and if the property is a > "nuisance" that the nonprofit organization intends to "rehabilitate." The > law also defines "nuisance" as including property that is "blighted" - a > term so vague that Missouri officials can take aim at virtually any > property they want.>> When Charles Lasby of Kansas City died in 2002, he owed back taxes on his > home. Two years later, the House Rescue Corp., a nonprofit group that > claims to fix up abandoned houses, petitioned the government to take the > land. Since House Rescue didn't notify Lasby's heirs, they sold the > property in May 2005. But that was five months after a court had allowed > House Rescue to take the property - for free.>> When the mix-up was discovered, the court ordered Karl Thomas, who had > bought the home and paid the back taxes, to stop fixing it. Thomas argued > that the law allowing nonprofits to take land violated the state and > federal constitutions, but the court ruled against him. He filed an > appeal, but only 48 hours later the Court of Appeals rejected his plea > without explanation.>> The idea behind the Missouri law seems to be to encourage private > organizations to clean up deteriorating neighborhoods. But in practice it > allows private groups to use government power to enrich themselves - > despite the Constitution's clear rules that government can only take > property "for public use" and only when it pays "just compensation.">> Unfortunately, Thomas' case is not unique. Three years ago, property owner > Jerry Bray was astonished to discover that a Missouri court was about to > give his land away to a Kansas City church. Bray, a bookstore owner, had > spent $40,000 improving the property - which had never been declared a > nuisance - only to discover that His Kingdom Church was planning to oust > him from the land and that he was entitled to no compensation. With > representation by Pacific Legal Foundation, Bray was able to keep his > property.>> This state law is only one of several examples of the Missouri's hostility > to private property rights. When the Kelo decision came out, Missourians > were rightly outraged that government could seize their land and give it > to politically influential developers. In the 1 1/2 years since, more than > half of the other states have enacted new laws to protect property from > seizure.>> But Missouri lawmakers refused to join this movement. Instead, they passed > SB 1944, which allows government to go on condemning property whenever it > is "an economic liability" and give it to big-box retailers or development > companies. And they refused to amend their constitution.>> The Constitution was intended to protect us from people who think they > know better than we do how to run our lives or how to manage our property. > It's time that the state's judges and lawmakers protect people from the > grasping hands of government.>> This article appeared in the Kansas City Star on February 19, 2007.>