What Does the CM Theater Saga Point Up?

An Analysis
Now that the Cape May Beach Theatre is demolished after a contest lasting over four years, it is time to take a moment to review the context in which the conflict took place, as this fight has ramifications far beyond this small theater.
On one side of the argument, we had those who desire to preserve the component elements of what they feel makes Cape May a jewel by the sea. They contend that this 1950s-era theater, designed by a renowned architect, was one of the elements. Further, Beach Theatre Foundation President Steve Jackson added: “I believe that Cape May…deserves to have a small movie theater.”
Jackson’s fears go deeper than the destruction of this theater. He said, the “court decision basically sanctions an open hunting season on countless numbers of structures significant to the state’s history and denies preservation groups a fair chance to save them…The HPC, is opposed to demolition, but budgetary constraints kept it from joining our suit. While we think it’s disgraceful the City Council should suppress its own board of experts and intrigue with an owner that is responsible for the derelict state of the site, we expected better from the court.”
On the opposite side of the issue, we had those who not only questioned the value of the theater as an historic structure; questioned the use of tax dollars in support of the preservation effort, including legal costs; questioned tying up our courts on such matters; and questioned governmental interference in the property rights of the theater owners.
A sample complaint against the struggle was: “This current lawsuit is expensive for the city taxpayers and it’s a waste of time.” Another lamented, “If you paid taxes in Cape May you would understand why this legal fight is so frustrating to many.”
Another offered the opinion that what the preservationists were saying “is a property owner has no rights as long as a few…think you should do what they want.” Another called it “Communism at its best. Can’t people be free to do what they want with their own property? Not here in communist NJ.”
This theater fight is emblematic of the crossroads our state and nation are in. From the days of our founding as a nation, inviolable property rights were a cornerstone of liberty. In years past, Steve Jackson would not have received the time of day in city hall nor in the courts. Were he to have expressed his belief that Cape May deserves a theater, he would have been told: People only deserve what they can pay for—You come up with fair market value and maybe Franks will sell it to you. By that I mean, fair market value, not an artificially low value due to restrictive regulations.
It used to be, when government wanted to purchase something for the common good, it paid market value. We have unfairly gotten away from that moral obligation by driving down the value of property via restrictions, then paying the owner the lower value. It is tantamount to legalized theft, and is patently unconstitutional, per the 5th Amendment, which states, that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
To Jackson’s fear of “open hunting season on countless numbers of structures significant to the state’s history,” should we not ask ourselves, “Why should we force someone to sell his property as less than market value? If the people want to preserve something for the common good, the people should pay the owner market value.” To do otherwise would not comport with the rule of law.
Fortunately, our current economic difficulties are helping to force us all back to the tried and proven ways of running our country. This saga highlights that unless we keep firmly in mind who we are as a people, how quickly we can be led astray, and the less we will prosper.