The Supreme Court’s recent decision to give local governments
virtually unchecked eminent domain powers was a devastating setback
for individual and property rights.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to give local governments virtually unchecked eminent domain powers was a devastating setback for individual and property rights.
Although the Fifth Amendment gives governments the power to force the sale of private property for public use, with the Supreme Court’s decision, that power has been defined to include any public good, including economic benefit to governments. That broad and subjective interpretation of the Fifth Amendment tramples individual rights and betrays the intent of the Bill of Rights.
In the case the Supreme Court considered, the city of New London, Conn., will now be able to force homeowners to sell their properties to allow building of a drug research facility, other commercial facilities and residential development.
Supporters of broad eminent domain powers argue that the public benefit in the form of jobs, blight removal, and increased tax revenue outweighs individuals’ personal property rights. Opponents counter that the authors of the Constitution envisioned eminent domain as a tool only to be used for projects with a government purpose or for highly-regulated utilities, like railroads.
Almost any private purpose can be said to have some public benefit. With the Supreme Court-endorsed broad interpretation of eminent domain powers, there is effectively no limit on when they can be used.
Wealthy, politically-connected developers will convince elected officials to use eminent domain to take advantage of poor, individual property owners. When it comes to campaign donations, lobbying pressure, tax revenue potential, and hiring hordes of lawyers, individual property owners are at an extreme disadvantage compared to corporations dangling development deals before local officials.
“Public good” is a subjective measure that cannot be equitably applied, and about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. One person might believe that increased tax revenue from a proposed factory will benefit a community, but another might argue that the plant’s pollution, noise, and traffic will be detrimental. One person might argue that a new city building will lead to more efficient delivery of municipal services, but another might argue that operating an additional facility will drain the city’s general fund. One person might argue that a new shopping center will generate sales tax revenue, but another might argue that taking acreage out of farming is harmful.
The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, public interest law firm, studied one five-year period, 1998 to 2002, and discovered more than 10,000 cases of eminent domain filed or threatened to benefit private developers. In the wake of the court’s ruling, look for those numbers to increase dramatically.
Now that the Supreme Court has failed to protect individual and private property rights, local elections are even more critical. When you’re considering a candidate for any local body, it’s crucial to know how he or she believes eminent domain powers should be used.
The Supreme Court has given local governments nearly absolute power with this eminent domain ruling, so voters must take care who we entrust to wield it.
