In their efforts to protect the oppressed, progressives forget perhaps the most important defense the poor and powerless have against discrimination and government abuse: property rights. A nation that protects property rights also protects human rights.
“The poorest man can defy all the powers of the Crown in his cottage,” explained 18th-century British Prime Minister William Pitt. ‘It may be brittle, the roof may shake, the wind may blow through, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his strength dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!’
Now imagine that level of freedom where a private owner (or tenant) can defy kings, presidents, governors and mayors. That, of course, explains why most leftists (and some conservatives, too) are fundamentally hostile to strict property protections. Those who want government to achieve grand goals do not want to hinder the ability of officials to achieve the intended upliftment.
In 2004, I included that quote from Pitt in my book (
Lo and behold, these agencies typically targeted the homes and businesses of the powerless. Yet the state’s Democratic leadership and progressive activists have been largely hostile to the movement to rein in the “tool” of eminent domain. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its imprimatur (Kelo v. City of New London) to this troubling lawsuit, with the most progressive justices siding with the government’s claim of expanded eminent domain grounds.
But twenty years later, progressives may learn their lesson. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 1950, which would have created a task force to study the effects of one of California’s best-known examples of eminent domain and also propose compensation. The compensation element of a 1950s takeover was a reasonable sticking point, but I am encouraged that Assembly Bill 1950 received overwhelming support in our Democratic-controlled Legislature.
The specific recording is known as Chavez Ravine, best known as the place where the Los Angeles Dodgers have played since the 1960s. It refers to three neighborhoods that were home to 3,800 Mexican American residents, many of whom were legally prohibited from living elsewhere. The city considered the area blighted, but as the bill explains, “These neighborhoods were in fact vibrant and cohesive communities, serving as a hub for homeownership and economic development and growth for people of color.”
One of the city’s most outrageous complaints was the lack of infrastructure in the area, which was not the fault of the residents, but the fault of city officials who refused to provide that “slum” with the same services as elsewhere. You can find countless stunning and deeply disturbing photos online of Los Angeles officials forcibly removing people from their homes – and bulldozing the nicely maintained bungalows. What a travesty.
But progressives often gloss over an important point. Unlike redevelopment-era initiatives that bulldozed neighborhoods to make way for shopping centers and corporate headquarters, Chavez Ravine (referred to by many as “The Poor Man’s Shangri-La”) was bulldozed to make way for progressive policies at that time: the federal public opinion housing projects.
Residents were initially promised new “homes” in the thirteen soulless apartment blocks planned for the site, but the project collapsed after the city’s voters – amid concerns about socialist-style housing projects in the heat of the Cold War – qualified a referendum and rejected the law. project on the ballot. The new mayor opposed the project, which the city ultimately scrapped.
It traded the vacant land to the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers in a package to bring the team to Los Angeles. A private stadium was not a public use, but the city included a large park as part of the project to get around that restriction. Voters narrowly approved the stadium deal. Kelo has unfortunately allowed governments to use eminent domain for anything considered a “public benefit,” rather than the more subdued “public use.”
This is the second time in recent years that California lawmakers have discovered the unjust results of eminent domain. Newsom signed a bill in 2022 to return Bruce’s Beach to the owners’ descendants. A black couple owned the Manhattan Beach estate in the 1920s and operated a resort that catered to black families, who had few legal places to swim. For discriminatory reasons, the city used eminent domain to take the property and turn it into a park, although it sat vacant for years afterward.
Progressives have drawn due attention to these examples, although they have focused on their discriminatory aspects. That’s fair, but the lack of property rights is the main problem, as each new generation of government planners has their reasons for it. Instead of passing token bills expressing horror at decades-old acts of violence, the legislature should now be concerned with protecting everyone’s property rights.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
The post Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Eminent Domain Legacy at Chavez Ravine appeared first on Reason.com.
