The recent anti-property rights decision from the Supreme Court
(Kelo vs. City of New London) has alarmed people of every ideological
persuasion. But new JLF Legal and Regulatory Analyst Daren Bakst noted
in a column published in Wednesday’s Wilmington Star-News that
a current case in the city illustrates that governments have plenty of
coercive power over property owners without Kelo. Just ask Todd
Toconis, who can’t demolish a house he owns next to his residence
because the Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission says it’s
historically significant. Toconis offered to donate the house to the
Commission so they could move it. But instead, the Commission issued an
11-month stay, during which of course, Toconis must continue to pay the
mortgage, insurance and taxes on the property. Wrote Bakst: “If
Wilmington imposes costly restrictions on a property after it
has been purchased, the owner should be compensated in some way for the
very real costs he or she is being forced to shoulder.”
Whose House Is It?