I  have written before about the cutbacks in the Section 8 Rental Assistance program’s current voucher system. Even though I did not ask for rental increases this year, I have received an ominous letter this week from one of the housing authorities saying that to meet the budget crunch, they are reducing the Section 8 portion of the payment and increasing what the tenant has to pay. They go on to say that in some cases this will put properties outside the financial means of some families. Well, duh!

I was sorely disappointed to hear about the US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London [Note 1]. For years state and federal governments have chipped away at private property rights. Though it has commonly been pointed out that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, to the Constitution of the United States protects private property rights, the interpretation of these clauses has expanded the rights of government over the years.

The pertinent clause of the Fifth Amendment reads, "…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In the past, this was interpreted as the power of government to use eminent domain in order to build streets and establish public utilities. However, during the 1900’s, Supreme Court cases added urban renewal and economic development to the definition of public use, granting governments the power to condemn private property that justice O'Connor refers to as having "…inflicted affirmative harm on society.”