COMMUNITY COMMENTARY:

John Locke’s Second Treatise on government established the philosophical foundation for much of the American system of government — and brought forth the idea of “natural rights,” such as life, liberty and the right to own property.

The wording of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be traced directly to the teachings of Locke.

While many Americans are familiar with the 5th Amendment for granting them protections against self-incrimination, the 5th Amendment contains an even more important statement of individual rights.

It continues, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” This part is known as the Takings Clause.

Traditionally, private property in America could not be seized by the government except for “public use.”

In the past, this meant if the government seized your property using eminent domain, the property seized must be used for the public good. Proper use of eminent domain would include taking private property for highways, bridges, schools or fire stations. Naturally, these takings must be accompanied with “just compensation” as required by the amendment.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., reinterpreted the amendment in a broad and socialistic manner.

The city of New London purchased a large swath of land for redevelopment. However, some owners refused to sell. In response, the city started condemnation proceedings for the property. The owners fought back, filing a lawsuit claiming the condemnation of their private property was a direct violation of the Takings Clause.

The United States Supreme Court, in an absolutely outrageous 5-4 decision, stated private property can be confiscated from a private citizen and given to another private citizen if that citizen’s plans for the property will be of greater public good (i.e. the new owner will pay more property taxes to the city).

We cannot idly sit by and allow private developers with large bank accounts and disproportionate influence over city and county officials to literally steal private property belonging to citizens.

Almost three years have passed since the Kelo decision. The Institute for Justice, which represented Susan Kelo in her case against the city, recently released a report card that ranked states on their efforts to enact substantive eminent domain reform. Sadly, California received a D- for its failure to enact any type of legislation to prevent the unfair taking of a citizen’s property.

For this reason I will continue to support efforts to reinforce the original intent of our founding fathers. I have recently signed the “Hands Off My Home Pledge” and committed to only support those legislative and initiative proposals which contain meaningful reforms that provide real protection from the abuses of eminent domain such as Proposition 98.

Until eminent domain reform is adopted, every person who owns property in California runs the risk of having the government seize their property. That’s why the “Hands Off My Home Pledge” is so important to each and every one of us.

TOM HARMAN is a state senator representing the 35th district.