Correspondence

The Community Forum section of the August 26 edition of the Independent

featured three letters to the editor, a guest commentary and an op-ed

piece by regular contributor Ron Davis on the subject of eminent domain

-- all rightfully opposed this abhorrent practice.

The current debate calls for a review of the history of property rights,

and government’s role in same.

The principle of property rights goes all the way back to the earliest

part of the Old Testament. Abraham and Lot separated their pastures to

put an end to disputes among their herdsmen. They thus established

respective claims to a share of the land.

The late Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek wrote that property rights

are at the center of civilization. Early man was nomadic and somewhat

asocial, partly as a way of protecting his property from plunder by

others. Only with the recognition of property rights did man begin to

aggregate into communities.

A major division between Aristotle and his mentor Plato had to do with

property rights and the role of property in society. Plato believed the

end of social strife could only come with the abolition of property.

Aristotle regarded property as an indestructible and positive force. In

Politics, he wrote that “states require property, but property ... is no

part of a state.” Cicero argued that government could not interfere with

private property because it had been created in order to protect it.

The very terms involved in property rights come from Latin. Property is

derived from propius, meaning particular to, or appropriate to, an

individual person. Under Byzantine jurisprudence it evolved to prorietas,

or ownership. The second half of the term “eminent domain” derives from

the Latin dominium. Yet, in ancient Rome, the rights implicit in dominium

were so absolute there was no concept of, much less a term for, eminent

domain.

In the 14th century, Pope Paul XXII asserted that as God had dominion

over the universe, man had dominion over his property. Shortly after,

theologians referred to property as an inalienable right. Aegidius

Romanus, a pupil of Thomas Aquinas, argued that property rights antedated

and transcended those of the state.

Our founding fathers recognized the link between property and freedom.

John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted ... that property is

not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law

and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” In The

Federalist No. 54, Madison said, “Government is instituted no less for

protection of property, than of the persons of individuals. ... The

rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal

rights.”

Thus, through the illegitimate power of eminent domain, governments

destroy that which they have been instituted to protect. In our area we

have seen far too much of this practice.

Twenty years ago the Huntington Beach Union High School District

expropriated the land under what’s now Ocean View High School via eminent

domain. When it decided it no longer needed part of this land, instead of

returning it to its rightful owner, it leased it to Home Depot. The

cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley apply, or threaten to

apply, it with reckless abandon.

John Locke argued that tyranny need not be any single egregious act. A

pattern of abuses was sufficient. Jefferson used Locke’s argument in

laying out the charges against King George III in the Declaration of

Independence.

Our local school districts and city councils, through use of eminent

domain, have established a similar pattern of abuses. It’s time our local

governments recognize that property rights transcend those of the state.

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley

EMINENT DOMAIN EFFORTS DOWNTOWN AIM TO BENEFIT MOST RESIDENTS

Let’s inject a little reality into the Huntington Beach City Council’s

recent decision to reinstate eminent domain Downtown (“Council pursues

buying out some Downtown homes,” Aug. 19).

First, the City Council did the right thing. Sure, 25 -- not 50, Ron

Davis -- people spoke against the action on Aug. 16. They constitute

barely one-tenth of 1% of the 200,000 people the City Council is charged

with representing.

It’s a safe bet that the vast majority of the other 199,975 residents

enjoy a Downtown that not only is rid of substandard housing, vacant lots

and oil operations, but also provides sales tax dollars to provide the

high level of service Huntington Beach residents are fortunate enough to

enjoy.

JACK MORROW

Huntington Beach