A long time ago, my grandfather owned a piece of farm land near Geneva, Switzerland. He didn't want to sell it, but was forced to by the government. Where my grandfather grew crops, the government created a series of swimming pool. I went there as a child and there were hundreds of kids playing in that pool. Some years later, the government sold that pool area for private apartments.
That's eminent domain- a taking. It happens all over the place.
The real questions were-
(1) where the owners justly compensated?
(2) did the government have justification?
Here the parties are justly compensated. The question is justification.
@Kharn- Ah the Nazis- you do realize by raising that you lose this argument.
The Government of the Netherlands has never used eminent domain to seize property?
@Ratty- An invading army is a lot different than a government sale. In this case
(1) the sellers were offered fair market value for their homes. Better yet, because of the increase in value of their property. These folks would do well.
(2) Did the government act appropriately? This is where it gets a bit shaky because it asks if the political processes work. These folks had the right to petition their local governments, the city, they had the right to petition their elected representatives. THey could avail themselves of legal power. Furthermore, there is a question of state law- Conn state law gives the government this power.
Thus the question that the federal court has to deal with is limited?
@Bradylama-
Again, the question here again (1) Just compensation
and (2) Public purpose?
As for Just Compensation- these folks are getting paid. Most of their neighbors have taken the deal, these folks want to hold out.
Is the government limited to just building bridges or roads or can it take a more expansive view of public purpose?
From the court's opinion-
While the opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens said that a local government could not take homeowners' property "simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party," the New London. Conn., project involved in this case was "a carefully considered development plan." While the resulting project would not be open for use by the general public, the Court said, there is no literal requirement of that outcome.
Reading the constitutional phrase "public use" in an expansive way, the Court majority declared: "For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takigs power."
The Court commented: "Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight..., but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference....Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
The irony of this-
Libertarians & Republicans. want less federal oversight and less government control over the states. This matter was permissable under Conn state law which takes a broader view of the Public Use aspect of the Takings Clause. (Other states that take the broad view- Kansas, New York, California, Texas, Penn, North Carolina, Mass, Lousiana, New Jersey, Minn. Maine, Tenn and Iowa ). Interestingly- even the narrow states accept that takings are ok to clear slums- maybe because poor folks get less rights than middle class? And maybe that's the problem in New London- these are middle class homeowners with a view of the water.
Libertarians and Republicans want less government involvement in economics. Here the New London government seems to be trusting to the market and market participants to make the best choices. Libertarians and Republicans believe that market 'knows best.'
Republicans and Libertarians want the state to take a step back for big business so that it can do what it has to do turn a profit. More Laissez Faire, more market mechanisms. (Afterall you said we should go back to 1900, remember?). And yet you are suprised if business can use its power to persuade a local political authority to act against the little guy. ANd now you are suprised when the idealism of Libertarians comes face to face with the reality of politics? Sorry, but it's a little late for "Oh that's not fair!"
So yes, I agree O'Connor that the danger of eminent domain is greater now, and I think it is dangerous when powerful companies can persuade weak local governments to carry out policies of eminent domain against individuals. I would also like to see a better showing of pubic use. But that's a question of weak political power vs. strong corporations- a consequence of what you Libertarians and Republicans have been trying to get for the last couple of decades.
Yes, we've seen a decline in civil rights in the US. But that's no surprise when (once W is finished) we'll have had republicans in office for 20 of the last 28 years.
But is New London in need of economic revitalization?
Let's see...double digit unemployment, renovation of a "brownfield" site.
The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.
New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people.
In exchange for Ms. Kelo's renovated house for which she's getting paid a decent price. It's sad that she's losing some sentimental value but given a choice between that an replacing 2000 jobs- I go with the jobs. (Though I have to admit- forcing her to pay rent to New London Development Corp was bogus and bad PR)
Nice guy? What me. Remember, I used to be one of these guys-
And may yet once more return to the Dark Side.
