Just when you thought property rights were dead and buried in America, the good guys scored a big victory yesterday, courtesy of the Ohio Supreme Court. Yesterday, the Court ruled unanimously that the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood could not seize five homes which stood in the way of private developers. With the green light provided by Kelo v. New London, the city of Norwood assumed it could do whatever it wanted with people’s property for the sake of enriching the city’s tax base. Indeed, 66 of 71 property owners voluntarily sold their homes to the developers. When five owners refused, the city used another tool given to them by Kelo, simply condemning the homes and the neighborhood as blighted. The Court correctly ruled that the city abused this right of condemnation and blocked their attempted seizure.

Norwood’s actions represent an alarming trend around the country in the aftermath of the Kelo decision. Given this authorization, city officials in the 42 states that have not yet passed anti-Kelo resolutions have reacted by sending in the bulldozers. Newark, New Jersey wants to raze 14 downtown acres to build upscale condos. Arnold, Missouri wants to destroy 30 homes, 14 small businesses, and the local Veterans of Foreign Wars for a Lowe’s and a strip mall. San Diego wants to demolish the cigar and coffee lounge of an Afghan immigrant first for a Marriot and then for a parking lot. Wherever he is, the late Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu- infamous for bulldozing people’s homes in order to build lavish personal palaces- is looking at post-Kelo America and smiling.

Perhaps the conditions which created Kelo are nothing more than a misunderstanding over a simple constitutional issue. City developers claim their right to condemn houses as blighted and then raze them to build a Wal-Mart is guaranteed by the US Constitution. However, eminent domain was meant to be a restriction of government power, not an expansion. Actually, it is found in the clear-as-crystal Fifth Amendment, the part of the Constitution most often referred to by liberals not appearing in the “Penumbra.” Personally, if liberals are so insistent that the Fifth Amendment apply to criminals and terrorists, they ought to apply it to law-abiding property owners as well. Eminent domain does not state that government can take private property if they provide just compensation; it says private property cannot be taken without just compensation. Note the difference in language.

With any luck, this decision combined with state and local-level action can reverse the most errant Supreme Court decision of the Rehnquist Court. States and even Congress have passed laws restricting eminent domain, and citizen initiatives are doing the same in other states to defend their rights. However, they shouldn’t have to fight these battles. Americans have a right to maintain ownership of the property they legally acquire. I shouldn’t have to say this in 2006, but such rights have been all but eliminated in places like the People’s Republic of Oregon where citizen initiatives attempting to revive property rights have been routinely struck down by the courts. Government’s eroding of property rights continues down the path of socialism and if left unchecked by the citizenry could march America down the road to serfdom.