Dennis Tuuri

Full PEAPAC Analysis

PEAPAC Explanation: This Measure would restore private property rights that existed in Oregon prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. Under most circumstances, it would make it illegal for the government to take your property for the purpose of selling it to another private property owner.

PEAPAC Commentary: In the landmark 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision, the U. S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that government could transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. This greatly curtailed private property rights across America. Private property is a basic Biblical freedom. The 8th Commandment prohibits theft. The case laws (Exo. 21-23) require restitution when property is stolen or damaged. Our Declaration of Independence says we have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “This was a restatement of John Locke’s “life, liberty and property.” Our happiness is tied to the right use of our property.

As an example of great wickedness on the part of rulers, the Bible gives us the account of King Ahab’s murder of Naboth. The driving force behind this murder was Ahab’s desire for Naboth’s land. Like some state officials today, Ahab thought he knew of a better use for Naboth’s land than Naboth did. Instead of a vineyard, Ahab thought it should be a vegetable garden. Like modern state officials, Ahab was willing to give Naboth the value of his land, or land someplace else. But Naboth liked the particular piece of land God had given him. So, like some state officials today, Ahab was willing to use the full power of his office to re-direct, by force if necessary, the use of Naboth’s land.

In some ways, what is happening under the Kelo decision is even worse than what Ahab did. He had to pay wicked men to lie in court! Ahab couldn’t just re-interpret the law and say it meant what it hadn’t for centuries, as our Supreme Court did last year. For over two hundred years, our nation’s laws heavily restricted government’s ability to take private property. There had to be a compelling public use for the land, such as a road. The Supreme Court erred and erred badly in the 2005 Kelo decision, which changed this 200 year old protection. The court overstepped its interpretive role by broadening the definition of “public use” under the 1st Amendment to include the confiscation of private property for the purpose of turning it over to private developers. The result has been disastrous. Some local governments (for example, Long Beach, California and Sand Springs, Oklahoma) have even tried to condemn churches to make way for private parking lots and developments. Measure 39 will prevent like atrocities from happening in Oregon. We strongly urge your Yes vote on Measure 39.