In a Word: Eminent Domain – Thanks to the Supreme Court, A person's home is no longer sacrosanct.
Gerald Eisman
August 01, 2006
Eminent Domain: The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
A government's authority to condemn land for public use has, since its inception. been used to tear down slums and prepare the land for public use, or build new roads, schools and other public works. How unfortunate, then, that on a black Tuesday in June, 2005 (by a 5 to 4 decision) the Supreme Court found that local officials can use their "eminent Domain" power to condemn homes in a working class neighborhood for other than the public use. In the decision, the only benefit would accrue to private development in hopes of boosting tax revenues and improving the local economy.
The decision was based on a New London, Connecticut dispute. The case, Kelo v New London upheld the right of that Connecticut city to take, under the right of eminent domain, property in its Fort Trumbull neighborhood to enable construction of a large development containing a hotel and conference center, private residences, shopping and restaurants, a marina, offices and research facilities, all private interest and not public good.
This is a very broad based interpretation, which flies in the face of the Fifth Amendment and undermines another in the rapidly dissipating freedoms of the average American citizen.
Many states, outraged by the Supreme Court decision, had taken up the fight to protect its citizens from unconscionable acts against their property rights. At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - currently forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Several states either expressly allows seizure of private property for private economic purposes or have yet to speak clearly to the question.
This year, on July 26, 2006, The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously that economic development does not constitute proper grounds under the Ohio constitution to justify appropriation of private property. The decision drew to a halt a $125 million dollar project of offices, shops and restaurants in a Cincinnati suburb. Officials had stated the project would create jobs and increase tax revenue.
The case pitted the city of Norwood against two couples trying to save their homes. Justice Maureen O'Connor, stating the unanimous decision, wrote: "For the individual property owner, the appropriation is not simply the seizure of a house, it is the taking of a home; the place where ancestors toiled, families were raised, where memories were made."
The reason so much rode on this decision is that property rights advocates, business groups and city planners are aware of the precedent the decision might set. Justice went on to say that cities have the right to consider the economic advantages of seizure, but courts dealing with decisions involving eminent domain must, in the future, apply heightened scrutiny to assure the rights of private citizens. To target any property because it is situated in a deteriorating area is unconstitutional, the court found, because the term is far too vague and subject to speculation.
Now, little more than a year after the Kelo case, much has happened in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation (a non-profit think tank), says he is not impressed by eminent domain legislation passed to protect homeowners. He feels that lobbyists were effective in managing to keep much of the eminent domain powers and ability to define limits in very subjective ways. There are, however, 28 states that taken legislative action to protect their citizens from those who unscrupulously attempt to usurp their rights.
On June 23, 2006, president George W Bush, in a rare but welcome decision for the people, issued an executive order stating in section ! that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for public use with just compensation, which is also stated in the constitution, for the purpose of benefiting the general public. He limits this use by stating that it may not be used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership of use of the property taken.
A city manager recently complained, what about a community's right to improve itself and create new jobs? A close reading of the constitution does not reveal, anywhere in the text, any verbiage vaguely resembling community rights. People's rights stand out prominently and more than once. If that doesn't say something to those who would trample property ownership, nothing short of more "slap-down" court rulings and restrictive legislation must be employed to protect the individual.
A government's authority to condemn land for public use has, since its inception. been used to tear down slums and prepare the land for public use, or build new roads, schools and other public works. How unfortunate, then, that on a black Tuesday in June, 2005 (by a 5 to 4 decision) the Supreme Court found that local officials can use their "eminent Domain" power to condemn homes in a working class neighborhood for other than the public use. In the decision, the only benefit would accrue to private development in hopes of boosting tax revenues and improving the local economy.
The decision was based on a New London, Connecticut dispute. The case, Kelo v New London upheld the right of that Connecticut city to take, under the right of eminent domain, property in its Fort Trumbull neighborhood to enable construction of a large development containing a hotel and conference center, private residences, shopping and restaurants, a marina, offices and research facilities, all private interest and not public good.
This is a very broad based interpretation, which flies in the face of the Fifth Amendment and undermines another in the rapidly dissipating freedoms of the average American citizen.
Many states, outraged by the Supreme Court decision, had taken up the fight to protect its citizens from unconscionable acts against their property rights. At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - currently forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Several states either expressly allows seizure of private property for private economic purposes or have yet to speak clearly to the question.
This year, on July 26, 2006, The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously that economic development does not constitute proper grounds under the Ohio constitution to justify appropriation of private property. The decision drew to a halt a $125 million dollar project of offices, shops and restaurants in a Cincinnati suburb. Officials had stated the project would create jobs and increase tax revenue.
The case pitted the city of Norwood against two couples trying to save their homes. Justice Maureen O'Connor, stating the unanimous decision, wrote: "For the individual property owner, the appropriation is not simply the seizure of a house, it is the taking of a home; the place where ancestors toiled, families were raised, where memories were made."
The reason so much rode on this decision is that property rights advocates, business groups and city planners are aware of the precedent the decision might set. Justice went on to say that cities have the right to consider the economic advantages of seizure, but courts dealing with decisions involving eminent domain must, in the future, apply heightened scrutiny to assure the rights of private citizens. To target any property because it is situated in a deteriorating area is unconstitutional, the court found, because the term is far too vague and subject to speculation.
Now, little more than a year after the Kelo case, much has happened in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation (a non-profit think tank), says he is not impressed by eminent domain legislation passed to protect homeowners. He feels that lobbyists were effective in managing to keep much of the eminent domain powers and ability to define limits in very subjective ways. There are, however, 28 states that taken legislative action to protect their citizens from those who unscrupulously attempt to usurp their rights.
On June 23, 2006, president George W Bush, in a rare but welcome decision for the people, issued an executive order stating in section ! that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for public use with just compensation, which is also stated in the constitution, for the purpose of benefiting the general public. He limits this use by stating that it may not be used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership of use of the property taken.
A city manager recently complained, what about a community's right to improve itself and create new jobs? A close reading of the constitution does not reveal, anywhere in the text, any verbiage vaguely resembling community rights. People's rights stand out prominently and more than once. If that doesn't say something to those who would trample property ownership, nothing short of more "slap-down" court rulings and restrictive legislation must be employed to protect the individual.
Print
Email
