Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is the power of government to forcibly purchase private property for public benefit. (You can read more in Wikipedia.) This is a well-established principle that I learned about back in 8th grade Civics if not before. No one likes having their house bought out from under them by the government, but all of us benefit from improvements to our communities made possible by the displacement of some of our fellow citizens.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in a case of eminent domain in the city of New London, Connecticut. A group of homeowners had sued to stop a plan for the city to purchase their houses to make room for an office complex, which the city council argued would benefit the community through increased tax revenue and jobs. The Court ruled against the homeowners, saying that the decision was within the rights of the local government and that there was no basis for the federal courts to interfere. (Read more on CNN.com.)
I feel sorry for the homeowners, and I understand that the city invoking eminent domain for the sake of building a commercial property is more controversial than doing so to build a road or a school, but I am surprised by vehemence of the negative reaction to this decision among conservative bloggers. My favorite blogger Anchoress has two threads on the subject (here and here) with a lot of angry comments about the decision.
In fact I am the only commenting there who agrees with the decision. I think so because the city council is a democratically elected body that the homeowners have far more influence over than any federal institution. They can have their say both in the voting booth and at the city council meetings. The council I'm sure gave due consideration to the homeowners' opinion as well as that of others in the community, and to the political fallout likely to result, and decided against the owners. By law the homeowners have to be fairly compensated for the expropriated property, and I have heard that governments generally try to make generous offers well above assessed tax values in these cases. Too bad for the homeowners, but they've been done no injustice. Unless someone can prove a charge of bribery, I think the decision was reached in the proper manner.
The standard the city council used for invoking eminent domain in this case my be controversial, but I don't see a clear-cut right and wrong here. I think it's best for all of us, Supreme Court and bloggers, to let the people of the community make the call in the way established by law.
Welcome to any fellow Anchoress fans who are following the discussion over here to my blog. I don't want to high-jack Anchoress's threads, but since I've probably posted too many comments there on this subject already, please post here any comments you'd specifically like me to respond to. You are also very welcome to look around the rest of the blog. I hope you'll find things of interest.
posted by papa at 04:52
3 Comments:
I've been following the case and the reaction fairly closely. I've hesitated to comment on it since I am a paid political blogger in Connecticut and I have not studied the issue closely enough provided comments that are as informed as I would like.
However, there are a few different things that I think are worth thinking about. As I understand things, the crux of the issue is, "What constitutes 'public use'?".
When a city takes over land for economic development that will make a neighborhood look better, create jobs, improve the tax roles and potentially decrease crime in an area by turning over the land to private developers, is that 'public use'? Or, must public use be for building some public property or infrastructure, like roads or schools.
The question is not as simple as it might seem. There is a long history of cities supporting redevelopment efforts by turning over land to developers as part of 'public use'.
In most cases when eminent domain ends up in the courts it is about whether or not a fair value has been determined and is more often about land being taken for schools and roads.
So, it seems as if the best approach to determine issues like this is for the courts to leave it up to local municipalities to determine what constitutes 'public use', instead of interfering with their processes.
Of course, I say this as a person who dislikes judges writing legislation from the bench and as a person that hates to see the federal government get in the way of local decisions.
However, the case in New London is even more complicated. As I understand things, the decision to take the land was made by a state redevelopment commission which did not have substantial local representation on the commission.
I believe much of the commission was appointed by former Governor Rowland, who is now serving time for corruption.
It is also worth noting that New London is a small city, both in geography and population.
It is the city in Connecticut that has the highest percentage of its land exempted from the grand list, although with the proposed base closing, this may change. It is a city that has a city manager as opposed to an elected mayor.
So, my current thinking: I'm not sure that the court made a bad decision. It may well be a good decision. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the redevelopment commission made a good decision. It may well be a bad decision.
I applaud those who are approaching this in a better thought out manner of suggesting that if the court did anything wrong it was in failing to provide better guidelines for what constitutes 'public use' and in suggesting that the real issue is for local municipalities and state governments should do a better job of defining what constitutes 'public use'.
"So, my current thinking: I'm not sure that the court made a bad decision. It may well be a good decision. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the redevelopment commission made a good decision. It may well be a bad decision."
That's a very good way to put it.
Thinking about this case, I can see the potential for abuse of eminent domain. Certainly if corruption is involved the move to expropriate private property should be invalid, and the order coming from a body that doesn't have a mandate and accountability to the community raises a big red flag for me.
However, in principle I feel that the call on what counts as 'public use' should belong to the community in question or their elected representatives. I think there's reason for the courts to intervene only in cases where that process has broken down through corruption or some other extreme circumstance.
I am a little saddened that so many people seem to be leaping the conclusion that the decision to invoke eminent domain has corrupt motivation, and even that all such decisions in every locality are corrupt at least when there is a commercial interest at stake. (Aldon's information above is the first I've seen that gave any reason to suspect corruption.)
To me it is one thing to despair of "Those Washington Pols" from ever doing anything except out of crass self-interest, but quite another to convince oneself that all local politicians are just as corrupt. Local politics may not be glamorous, but it's the forum where citizens of a democracy can have the most direct influence on decision making, from voting for or against Betty Smith from down the street to standing up and speaking your mind in front of the city council meeting. It's also the level of government with the least difference between the governors and the governed. I always thought of most city council members as relatively ordinary people, representative of the town's population.
If people have lost faith in the democratic institutions closest to them, easiest for them to participate in and influence, aren't the effectively living under tyranny, regardless of the government's legal form?
"What constitutes public use?"
Publicly owned. Land that is for public use, is owned by the public (i.e. the government, not a corporation or rich citizen).
It is clearly private use in this case. The property is privately owned.
Also, since this is in the Constitution, it is a federal issue, not a state issue (remember, powers NOT given to congress are defaulted to the state, and this is clearly a power granted to congress, thus a federal issue). So while some may favor the idea that the states (and localities) know better the situations of their citizens, that is not how the law is written.
(Sorry it took so long, was without internet access for a week)
Post a Comment
<< Home