Justices Uphold Taking Property for Development
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision
which allows local governments the right to use eminent domain to
appropriate private property for commercial development purposes.
The
5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the City of New London, Conn., to
proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential
neighborhood with office space for research and development, a
conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian “riverwalk” along the
Thames River.
The
project, to be leased and built by private developers, is intended to
derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center
built nearby by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.
This is
– to me – a rather troubling development. Eminent domain issues
have always been touchy – sometimes the ability to appropriate land is
something that is required. As a society, we need things
like roads and schools. Cities and local governments need the
ability to make that type of decision.
However,
the Supreme Court now extended that right to include condemning private
property in order to grant other private interests (i.e. “developers”)
property for development projects.
In my
own opinion, this goes a little too far. In this case, housing is
being condemned to build shops and commercial areas to supplant a new
office park facility. It doesn't take much to assume that
Wal-Mart and other big box retailers will be lobbying local governments
to clear areas to build new stores were older buildings and
neighborhoods exist.
Cities
and counties need to be able to plan, and to zone business activities
(such as livestock operations) – but seizing property to bestow to
another entity seems like a step too far – particularly in non-blighted
areas. Cities must balance re-development with the rights of the
citizenry that lives there.
The Des Moines Register, however – agrees with the court.
In a point of disagreement – much of downtown Des Moines redevelopment
is taking place in parts of town that were definitely 'blighted', which
was within the previous regulations.
However, the Register also points out that this use of eminent domain
is nothing new – which is more directly applicable to yesterday's
ruling.
Writing
for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court long ago
accepted the idea that justification for government to exercise its
power of eminent domain is broader than simply “public use.” Even the
classic example of taking property for railroads directly benefited
private railroad companies. Likewise, the court has said private lands
could be taken so mining companies could extract and transport minerals.
Blog For Iowa 