TIME TO STOP SEIZING LAND FOR PRIVATE USE.

Byline: ADAM B. SUMMERS Local View

A man's home is his castle, but state and local governments are storming the gates.

One of the most offensive practices to come into vogue lately is that of taking one man's home or business against his will and giving it to a more favored person or business. Local governments often invoke eminent domain to evict homeowners so as to make land available to a developer of luxury condos. They boot out small businesses in favor of large retailers.

``California is one of the most active states in condemning properties for the benefit of other private parties,'' states a 2003 report from the Castle Coalition, an organization that fights eminent-domain abuses across the country. ``Between 1998 and 2002, ... cities and redevelopment agencies condemned at least 223 individual properties for the benefit of private parties and threatened at least another 635.''

Fortunately, Proposition 90 seeks to prevent such injustices. The measure would explicitly prohibit state and local governments from using eminent domain to take property from one private party to give it to another.

Proposition 90's restrictions on eminent-domain abuse seem pretty common-sense -- unless you are an unscrupulous developer or a corrupt legislator looking to profit at the expense of someone else's property rights.

Unfortunately, many have ignored the issue because they think it doesn't affect them -- until one day it does. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court's now-infamous decision last year in a Connecticut case, Kelo v. City of New London, put the issue on many property owners' radars. People realized that if it can happen there, it can happen here, too. How much do you really own your property?

The Kelo decision ignited a firestorm of state and local measures intended to protect property owners from similar eminent-domain abuses. Unfortunately, many of these measures were so watered down as to be practically meaningless. While Proposition 90 has its drawbacks -- it leaves open-ended such eminent-domain justifications as ``blight'' and ``obscenity'' -- it does have some teeth and would offer property owners throughout the state real protection against government's most egregious eminent-domain abuses.

Another provision, which some claim is more controversial than the eminent-domain element, would require state and local governments to compensate property owners when the government reduces the value of private property through more restrictive zoning or other regulations. But such ``regulatory takings'' are just as odious as other eminent-domain abuses, since it matters little whether the government takes 100 percent of your property by invoking eminent domain or, say, 25 or 50 percent of its value by passing regulations.

The principle is the same: Government should, at the very least, be severely restricted in its ability to take private property. And it should fully compensate property owners for their loss as a result of government action.

The Founding Fathers were right about the importance of private property in preserving and protecting liberty. John Adams argued, ``Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.'' George Washington asserted, ``Private property and freedom are inseparable.''

And James Madison wrote, ``Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons, of individuals.''

They meant protecting the property of all, not some more than others.