Today marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision. Today the Libertarian Party published the following open letter:

"We, the state chairs of the Libertarian Party, and members of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), wish to call attention to the fifth anniversary of the wrongful Kelo v. New London decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Susette Kelo and her co-plaintiffs simply wanted to be left in peace in their homes, but the New London Development Corp. wanted their land for its own development purposes, and convinced the City of New London to condemn their property for its benefit.

"By rendering its decision against Susette Kelo and her co-plaintiffs, the court gutted an important private property protection of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that it is acceptable for government entities to condemn and seize private property, even when the purpose is to offer that property to another private owner for economic development.

"The Supreme Court's decision expanded the government's unjust power of eminent domain.

"Even more shamefully, the proposed development never materialized. The Institute for Justice recently noted that 'The very land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood remains barren -- home to nothing but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.'

"Eminent domain is bad enough when it is used to expand government roads and schools, but the practice of forcibly taking a person's land to give to a company for things like shopping malls is utterly wrong.

"The Libertarian Party has always showed strong support for private property rights. Our platform states that 'we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain.'

"Last year, Susette Kelo commented that 'even though over 40 states have passed legislation offering some protection to home and business owners, don’t think your property is safe, because it is not.' The Castle Coalition, which works to protect property owners from eminent domain abuse, has given only five states an A or A- rating for eminent domain reform in the wake of the Kelo decision (NH gets a B+). Many states have passed reforms that sound strong at first, but contain major loopholes or other bad provisions. Republicans and Democrats like to posture as eminent domain reformers while they carve out exceptions for special interests. "We call on the Supreme Court to reverse the Kelo ruling in a future case, and we call on all 50 states to adopt laws or constitutional amendments to eliminate this practice."

In 2006, the LPNH fully endorsed amendment CACR30 (passed with more than 85% of the vote), which placed further limits on the state's power of eminent domain and strengthened the protections of private property ownership in NH. Gubernatorial candidate Richard Kahn made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

###

Castle Coalition report on NH

Castle Coalition 50 state report card

CACR30 became Article 12-a of NH Bill of Rights. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html