Justices Uphold Taking Property for DevelopmentYesterday, 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.
Army Recruiters Reach New Lows Due to Unpopular War
