Supreme Court to rule on eminent domain issue
Posted by: McQ
I’m glad to see the Supreme Court finally taking this issue. However, I’m a bit worried as to how they’ll rule.
The issue? Something which, in my opinion, completely violates the intent of the Constitutional provision of eminent domain.
Full disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of eminent domain. I see it as a violation of property rights because it assumes that ultimately the state has a higher right to your property than you do.
But that’s a fight for another day. What this court case concerns is the growing practice of governments using eminent domain to seize private homes to make way for business development. In other words, turning over the property to private developers to build and develop the property privately with an eye toward generating higher tax revenues for the government.
That, in my opinion, is not within the Constitutionally mandated "public use". That has traditionally meant the property used to build roads, schools and airports, etc. Not Wal-Mart shopping centers or business parks.
The case has to do with a taking in New London, CT:
The justices voted to hear an appeal brought on behalf of several families in a working-class neighborhood of New London, Conn. Taking homes for private developments, they argue, is not what the Constitution means by "public use."
The libertarian Institute for Justice, which represents the homeowners, is urging the Supreme Court to call a halt to what it sees as a dangerous trend.
"If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone’s home or business, then no property in America is safe," said Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the group. "Anyone’s home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business, and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."
This is a very important libertarian issue which is why you see them involved in the case.
Ms. Berliner is absolutely spot on with her assessment. In effect the upholding of this taking by the city government of New London CT would mean that no one really owns their property, and that there are, essentially, no limits on the taking of property by government under the provision of eminent domain.
No person’s home would be safe anywhere from arbitrary taking by government for whatever reason they give.
What’s disturbing is this trend has been evident for a few years.
Between 1998 and 2002, there were more than 10,000 instances in 41 states in which local officials moved to condemn private property so they could transfer it to other private users, the Institute for Justice’s lawyers told the court. Often, these developments have required the uprooting of elderly people who have lived in their homes for decades.
This is simply not acceptable. We all grit our teeth and accept the fact that roads, schools, government buildings and airports have to be built. But what we don’t have to accept is government taking homes to aid and abet private development in the name of increased tax revenues. This sort of taking turns the Constitution upside down because it would be protecting the government’s right to violate indivdual property rights at will. That is exactly the opposite of the intent of the Constitution. If Wal-Mart wants a piece of property, and the owner says no, its none of government’s business. If they want it badly enough, they’ll pay the price necessary to get it or go elsewhere.
Although lower courts have agreed that officials can condemn and raze slums, they are divided over whether city planners can seize private land to make way for private development.
The Constitution says people whose property is taken are entitled to "just compensation." But the New London homeowners say the government is not entitled to take private property in the first place unless it is needed for a "public use." The recent trend "raises the specter that eminent domain authority is now being used to favor purely private interests," their lawyers said.
In their response, city officials said New London had been economically depressed since the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in 1996.
"New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation," they said. When Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, opened a research center there in 1998, the city announced plans for a 90-acre economic development in the nearby Fort Trumbull section. It envisioned a waterfront hotel and conference center, a retail complex and a new office park.
Standing in the way were several dozen old homes. Susette Kelo and other owners sued to keep their homes, saying the Constitution protected their rights to their private property.
Many cities have successfully "rejuvenated" themselves without resorting to what I consider to be illegal taking. The fact that lower courts split over this concerns me. I would think this would essentially be an open and shut case for the Supreme Court, finding for the home owners. But then it depends on whether the Supreme Court chooses to interpret the Constitution as it is written or change it by fiat, doesn’t it?
UPDATE: Walter Williams also takes a look at this issue.
Permalink / Comments ( 1 ) / TrackBacks ( 0 )
AI
