‘Victory for Property Rights’

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment means what it says; when government “takes” private property for public purposes, it must pay just compensation to the property owners. Peirce apparently wishes that the Fifth Amendment did not exist or that the Supreme Court would ignore it and allow state and local governments a free hand to decide what citizens can and cannot do with property they own.

The court’s decision was not so remarkable. Until the 20th Century, most takings were actual acquisitions of land for some public purpose such as road building. In more recent times, government regulation of property use has become more pervasive and the courts have held that, when particular regulations excessively limit the use of a parcel of property, they rise to the level of a “taking” and therefore the Fifth Amendment requires that the property owner be compensated. The recent decision was in that line of cases and was no radical departure from precedent.

If Peirce fears that property owners and developers will use the property they have bought and paid for in some way he disapproves, the solution is simple. Buy it from them.

DAVID P. BERGLAND

Costa Mesa