One Man's Blight is Another Man's Home

If you’ve never seen “Batteries Not Included”, today’s homework assignment consists of scurrying out and securing it. Permit me to summarize the plot of one of Spielberg’s lesser known, but cuter, works:

An elderly couple owns a small apartment building/diner in a “blighted” section of town. Although little to look at, it’s home, and they’re sentimentally attached to it. The entire surrounding neighborhood has been purchased by a developer with big plans for a massive project. Only this elderly couple and their humble abode stand athwart the tide of “redevelopment”.

The developer – not being a government – must resort to nefarious means to “persuade” the couple to sell and vacate. His plans ultimately fail, due to the intervention of the movies’ stars, but I shan’t ruin the plot by revealing anything more.

Were government involved, no force – real or fantastic – could have saved the poor couples’ home from the wrecking ball. Their sympathetic attachment to their home of half a century would have counted for nothing. The government, which purports to protect the weak from the strong, would have delivered their property into the hands of the rich developer, all in the name of the common good.

And, now, our Supreme Court tells us, that’s just fine.

True, not every obnoxious governmental policy violates the Constitution. But New Jersey labors under no obligation to treat our citizens as poorly as the federal constitution permits. Unfortunately, our own constitution permits precisely the sort of abuse the Supreme Court sustained. It requires immediate attention.

Article 8, Section III of our state Constitution specifically permits a municipality to seize “blighted” property and private corporations are expressly permitted to participate.

One man’s blight, however, is another man’s home.

No doubt, the “collective” – the “public” – benefits from redevelopment projects. The new owners of the property may provide a more aesthetically pleasing development. They may pay higher taxes. They may offer much needed commercial activity. And public officials are to be forgiven for their willingness to sacrifice the homes of a few to the perceived needs of the many.

But it’s still horribly wrong.

Simply put, if government needs one’s land for a road, a railroad, or the like, that’s unfortunate, but, traditionally, public needs of this sort trump property rights. Even as respects a municipal building, a park, or some such, in which the need for a specific tract is much less clear, public needs may triumph in the absence of abuse.

But grabbing someone’s property, only to hand it over to someone else, simply because the latter will pay more taxes, or provide jobs? That crosses the line. Such is simply not a valid reason to seize a person’s home or business. If the private developer wants the property that badly, let it pay a price the owner is willing to accept. Or go elsewhere.

There are some rights that even government – especially government – must respect.

“Blight” can be addressed in many ways short of expropriating property. Certainly, government may insist upon proper maintenance of homes and businesses. But the very thought that government may swoop down and take one’s property – especially simply to transfer it to some rich corporation – simply because they want more affluent neighbors is obnoxious.

And it should be illegal.

Our society is based upon individual rights, not those of the collective. We prosper, collectively, when government protects individual rights, including rights to private property. Under extreme circumstances, property rights can be subordinated to public necessity, but securing richer neighbors is not such a circumstance.

Certainly, the advocates of redevelopment will point to the benefits flowing to a municipality from eliminating blight, opening new businesses, creating new jobs, and increasing taxes. They will point out that the original owners received just compensation and that the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few.

But our freedoms often depend upon protecting the rights of the few against the wishes of the many.