For most of American history, government “eminent domain,” “takings” or “public use” referred to a narrow power—the right to seize private property, but only for genuine public uses like roads, schools, or courthouses, and only with just compensation. The Fifth Amendment’s promise was unambiguous: no one can lose their property for another’s gain under the government’s guise of progress. But over the recent decades, that safeguard has steadily been eroded. “Public use” quietly gave way to “public purpose,” and “public purpose” could mean whatever politicians claimed would benefit the community.
Then, in 2005, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London dismantled our Fifth Amendment rights and rattled the country. Ordinary homeowners, who had built their lives around modest houses in working-class neighborhoods, suddenly discovered that “public use” could be stretched to mean “whatever serves politically connected developers.” In Connecticut, as in too many other places, private homes could be bulldozed not for highways or post offices, but for shopping malls and speculative real estate projects. The message was clear: property rights—supposedly the cornerstone of American liberty—were at the mercy of politicians and their favored interests.
Arizona Takes Action to Defend Property Rights
Arizona’s citizens responded with action. In 2006, they passed the nation’s strongest property rights safeguard, Proposition 207— the Private Property Rights Protection Act—a protection developed by the Goldwater Institute. Unlike the Kelo standard that allowed “public purpose” to replace “public use,” Prop 207 restored the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment in Arizona. It ensures that government cannot seize private property for economic development, tax revenue, or aesthetic reasons. Only a genuine public use tied to health and safety needs can pass muster. In other words, Arizona law makes clear that bureaucrats cannot condemn working-class homes just because they would rather see luxury condos or high-end shopping.
The Private Property Rights Act also enshrined a simple truth: if government takes away the use of your property, it must pay for what it takes. For example, if a new zoning rule, “historic” designation, or land-use ordinance strips away an owner’s ability to build, sell, or profit from a property, the government must either compensate the loss in value or waive enforcement. That principle has proven indispensable because the threat to property ownership today comes less from bulldozers than from zoning boards, ordinances, and regulatory decrees, often at the local level.
Legal Battles Deliver Wins for Property Owners
Since its passage, Prop. 207 has worked remarkably well. In Tucson, shortly after Prop. 207’s implementation, the Goldwater Institute secured a decisive win for Arizona homeowners, forcing the city to abandon an “anti-demolition” ordinance that violated Proposition 207—the very safeguard Arizonans adopted to prevent government from devaluing private property by regulation. The rule would have trapped thousands of property owners in place, forbidding redevelopment of older buildings under the guise of “neighborhood preservation.” But a Pima County judge sided with Goldwater’s argument that Prop. 207 means what it says: when government action robs a property of its use or value, the government must pay for what it takes. The ruling reaffirmed a bedrock principle that Arizona’s voters enshrined nearly two decades ago—that property rights belong to the people, not elected officials.
The same fight played out in Flagstaff in 2021, where officials tried to stifle housing growth through a sweeping High-Occupancy Housing plan that effectively barred ordinary owners from improving or converting their property. The city’s new restrictions—on density, bedrooms, and even parking—threatened to strip value from land without compensation. Dozens of Flagstaff property owners, backed by the Goldwater Institute, filed Prop. 207 claims demanding relief. Facing millions in potential liability, the city backed down, exempting those owners from the scheme rather than paying for its overreach. Flagstaff’s attempt to micromanage private property shows how fragile these freedoms remain and reveals why Goldwater’s ongoing defense of Prop. 207 matters not only for Arizona, but for anyone who believes liberty begins at the front door.
In Jerome, Arizona—once a copper boomtown, now a hillside artists’ enclave—its residents sustained themselves by welcoming tourists. Families like Gretchen Groseta’s restored century-old homes, expecting to share them with visitors as short-term rentals. But after embracing these efforts, in 2015 the town suddenly prohibited these rentals—retroactively stripping away potential streams of income and threatening owners with fines and jail. Goldwater Institute attorneys stepped in, arguing that Proposition 207 required compensation when governments change the rules midstream. Goldwater’s case was clear and difficult to refute: “If you buy a house with the intention of using it as a rental property and the government says that’s allowed, the government can’t come back after the fact and refuse to let you rent the property out without compensating you,” a Goldwater attorney noted. And thanks to a Goldwater-backed law, owners can rent out their properties today.
The same principle was vindicated in Holbrook, Arizona, where officials in 2022 derailed the sale of Anil Patel’s Howard Johnson motel by rezoning it mid-purchase. Why? Because they wanted “a little more control of who’s coming in.” That petty arrogance of local officials—deciding who may own and use property not by neutral law but by political preference—crushed the sale and gutted the owner’s equity. Thanks to Prop. 207, the city was forced to settle. Without such protections, Anil would have been a cautionary tale of how quickly government can erase decades of work with a sudden stroke of a pen.
Local Governments Still Threaten Property Rights
These examples underscore a lesson learned since Kelo: property rights are fragile not only against eminent domain, but against the creeping hand of regulators who believe they know better than property owners how their land should be used. Cities hide restrictions in the language of “neighborhood character” or “public safety,” yet when pressed, cannot show how banning vacation rentals or blocking affordable conversions actually prevents harm. Courts once warned that letting government “leave the owner in technical possession while taking away his rights” would be a perversion of constitutional liberty. Sadly, that warning too often goes unheeded.
Property rights are essential to a free nation. They are not merely about acreage, title, or profit—they are about independence and future prosperity. Anyone who can be told overnight that he may no longer rent, sell, or build on his own land is no longer free in any meaningful sense. From Tucson to Holbrook, Arizona’s homeowners remind us that the right to property is not an antiquated doctrine, but the foundation of self-government and individual freedom.
The battle that began with Kelo is far from over. Across the country, cities and states continue to wield eminent domain for social and economic experiments once unthinkable. From “obesity zoning” that restricts fast-food outlets in the name of public health, to bans on short-term rentals and selective redevelopment projects, governments are still picking winners and losers in the use of private land.
According to the Institute for Justice, since Kelo thousands of properties across the United States have faced condemnation for private development, and hundreds of local governments still invoke eminent domain to serve private interests while regulating away property rights on the whims of officials at all levels of government. Each time an ordinary family stands its ground, it reaffirms a principle older than the republic itself: that liberty depends on secure property—and secure property demands laws that bind would-be rulers as well as citizens. Goldwater has stood tall defending those rights for 20 years, and now we’re working to see every state adopt our Property Ownership Fairness Act so that others can enjoy the strong private property rights that Arizonans do, too.
