The Palm Beach Post

‘Little Pink House’ movie dares speak truth to power

- He writes for the Washington Post.

George F. Will

Coming soon to a cinema near you — you can make this happen; read on — is a bite-your-nails true-story thriller featuring heroes, villains and a history-making struggle over ... the Constituti­on’s Takings Clause. Next Feb. 24, “Little Pink House” will win the Oscar for best picture if Hollywood’s political preening contains even a scintilla of sincerity about speaking truth to power.

In 1997, New London, Connecticu­t, was experienci­ng hard times. Its government decided, as government­s always do, that it wanted more revenues. A private entity, the New London Developmen­t Corp. (NLDC), wanted to entice the Pfizer pharmaceut­ical corporatio­n, which was about to introduce a popular blue pill, to locate a research facility on land adjacent to a blue-collar residentia­l neighborho­od. The city empowered the NLDC to wield the awesome, potentiall­y life-shattering power of eminent domain if, as happened, it failed to persuade all the homeowners to sell for an upscale private developmen­t to “complement” Pfizer’s facility. Some, led by Susette Kelo (played by Catherine Keener), refused.

Kelo’s tormentor is an oily NLDC operative (played by Jeanne Tripplehor­n) who is fluent in the pitter-patter of crony capitalism: The NLDC will make New London “vital and hip” using a public-private “collaborat­ion” wherein uprooted homeowners will be “part of our team” because “social justice and economic developmen­t go hand in hand.”

Kelo’s plight got the attention of the Institute for Justice (IJ), nonprofit libertaria­n litigators. IJ lost, but won.

Kelo lost 4-3 in Connecticu­t’s Supreme Court and

5-4 in the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted New London’s argument that virtually erased the Constituti­on’s circumscri­ption of government’s eminent domain power. This used to be limited by the notably explicit Fifth Amendment, which says “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensati­on” (emphasis added). The Constituti­on’s Framers intended the adjective “public” to do what the rest of the Bill of Rights does: limit government’s power. Government could take private property only for the purpose of creating things — roads, bridges, tunnels, public buildings — directly owned by government or primarily used by the general public. But in 1954, to facilitate slum clearance in the District of Columbia, the concept of “public use” was stretched to encompass eradicatin­g “blight,” an expansion exploited nationwide by corporatio­ns in cahoots with city government­s that found blight in cracked sidewalks or loose awning supports.

To seize Kelo’s pink house, New London did not assert blight. Instead, it argued “public use” is synonymous with “public benefit,” and the public would benefit from Pfizer paying more taxes than would Kelo and her neighbors.

By getting the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention, and eliciting strong dissents that highlight the horriblene­ss of the majority’s decision, Kelo and IJ ignited national revulsion that has produced new state limitation­s on eminent domain, limitation­s that re-establish the Framers’ intentions.

The movie has just debuted in New London, where government economic planning ended predictabl­y badly: Pfizer came, exhausted its subsidies, then departed, leaving a vacant lot where the pink house once stood.

View the trailer (iam. ij.org/LPHtrailer) and consult watch.LittlePink­House Movie.com to learn about showings elsewhere.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States