Eminent Domain

IN EMINENT DANGER

In June of 2005 the Supreme Court shocked and frightened land owners across America by ruling that private property can be seized by the government and sold to private developers in order to generate tax revenue and spur economic growth. That case, Kelo v. City of New London, opened the floodgates for local governments to use eminent domain for private gain. The Supreme Court's decision triggered an immediate response, and the following year the issue of eminent domain appeared on 12 state ballots – making it the single biggest ballot issue of the 2006 election. The ballot initiatives were successful in 10 states, giving residents in those states varying degrees of protection from eminent domain abuse. Other states have followed suit and passed similar laws. However the problem has not gone away.In Baldwin Park, California city officials plan to use their eminent domain power to seize more than 500 homes and small businesses. The land will then be sold to the Bisno Development Company – a wealthy and politically connected private developer. The developer will use the 125 acres for projects that will generate more tax revenue. The Baldwin Park proposal is perhaps one of the worst examples of eminent domain abuse in the country (unfortunately it is not the only example).In Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Historically, the government's right of eminent domain has been invoked when land is needed for a distinct public purpose – such as a highway, public school, hospital or military base. The words "for public use" and "without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment were meant to provide safeguards against excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government's eminent domain power. As a result of the court's decision in the case of Kelo v.City of New London, however, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.What happened in the city of New London, Connecticut was not an isolated incident. Similar scenarios have played out in communities all around the country. The city of New London was looking for ways to improve its economy. In 2000, the city approved a development plan that would put in office buildings, a hotel, and a health club near the waterfront. When they approved the plan, however, the city gave the developers power to condemn houses whose owners remained unwilling to sell. The city argued that it would be for public good to develop the city and encourage tourism and create jobs, and for that reason, those homes could be seized - and the Supreme Court agreed.In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the court's decision to expand eminent domain to include such takings. She wrote that, "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded." Such a broad interpretation, she argued, could include just about anything.The Supreme Court has given local governments the green light to confiscate private property for profit. Private homes and small businesses can now be bulldozed and replaced by upscale retail and housing developments, office buildings, hotels, casinos and other redevelopment projects that are owned, not by the public, but by private individuals and corporations. Such abuse of power cannot be what the founding father's had in mind when they drafted the constitution.