A lawsuit against the city of Chicago illustrates the adage, “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” In the early 2000s, Bloomer Chocolate wanted to expand its factory. The company offered the owner of an adjacent property $824,980 for the land. When the owner declined the offer, the city of Chicago seized the land for Bloomer via eminent domain. The land owner sued the city, and he ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Three justices voted to hear the case, but four justices must agree before the Court will hear an appeal. Some observers though that the Court would accept the case, and perhaps overturn its controversial ruling in Kelo. v. City of New London. After the Court rejected the appeal, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Kelo decision was a mistake and the Court “disservices the Constitution” by not hearing the Bloomer case.
A watchdog group–Housing Rights Initiative (HRI)– in New York has sued thirty-six realtors and landlords for violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The defendants are alleged to have refused to accept housing vouchers for rental properties. New York laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of “source of income”–vouchers or other housing assistance. HRI spent eight months contacting realtors and landlords to inquire about advertised rental properties. The lawsuit asks that HRI be fully compensated for the use of its resources in the sting operation. Housing advocates are hoping that a victory in this case will open the doors to similar litigation in other states, including those that don’t prohibit source of income discrimination. And they wonder why there is a shortage of affordable housing.
The “bundle” theory of property is widely accepted by lawyers and jurists. This idea holds that property consists of a “bundle” of rights, such as the right of possession, the right of use, the right of exclusion, among others. The idea also holds that one of the “sticks” in that bundle can be removed, but a bundle remains. As an example, government can regulate or even prohibit your use of property but allow you to continue to possess it. In such a scenario, a “bundle” of rights remain, and so the right to property has not been violated. To illustrate the absurdity of this, consider how it could applied to another fundamental right: the right to free speech. According to the bundle theory, we have the right to print a pamphlet, the right to pontificate on the corner, we have the right to start a podcast, we have the right to write a blog, and much more. According to the bundle theory, even if we are prohibited from expressing our ideas through written means, we retain a “bundle” of other rights to free speech. But if we are legally prohibited from expressing our ideas in the form of our choosing, then our right to free speech has been violated. Applying the “bundle” theory to free speech would ultimately mean the death of free speech. The same point is true of property rights.