Monday, September 12, 2005
Forfeit Your House in Connecticut
Another belated, but important post:
Outrage erupted on both ends of the political spectrum and both sides of the congressional isle as the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Kelo vs. the City of New London. It rules on a eminent domain question. The constitution stipulates that the government can seize private land for public use or the public good so long as the government provides “just compensation” for the seizure.
This decision is incendiary because rather than seizing homes for a highway, a military base, or even an airport, private land was seized to make way for another private venture – a mall. The city claims it was bogged down by such financial ruin that a new shopping center qualifies as “public good” because it will stimulate the local economy.
In the past “public use” meant land was being seized and paid for to build a public structure such as a highway. “Public good” means that something was seized to protect the public safety. Building a mall falls under neither of these categories. It is inconceivable that a local government would have the audacity to kick people out of their homes only to hand over the property to private contractors to build a private mall. The only more surprising and distressing development is that the Supreme Court upheld this heinous action. I can’t imagine that the framers of the constitution thought that public good would be interpreted to rationalize stealing peoples homes and handing them over to a private contractor. There was not even a sense that the community wanted the mall. I spoke personally Tom Londregan, the city's lawyer who informed me that there had been no referendum. That procedurally, a city-wide vote had been bypassed.
If you read the dissents in this opinion you will see that I am not the only one who thinks this sets a precedent of a blank check to any local or state government. If stimulating the economy on any level is rationalization enough to invoke the takings clause, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a taking could not be rationalized. If this is an accurate interpretation of the constitution then why are there even restrictions put on the takings clause? It just cant be right.
Outrage erupted on both ends of the political spectrum and both sides of the congressional isle as the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Kelo vs. the City of New London. It rules on a eminent domain question. The constitution stipulates that the government can seize private land for public use or the public good so long as the government provides “just compensation” for the seizure.
This decision is incendiary because rather than seizing homes for a highway, a military base, or even an airport, private land was seized to make way for another private venture – a mall. The city claims it was bogged down by such financial ruin that a new shopping center qualifies as “public good” because it will stimulate the local economy.
In the past “public use” meant land was being seized and paid for to build a public structure such as a highway. “Public good” means that something was seized to protect the public safety. Building a mall falls under neither of these categories. It is inconceivable that a local government would have the audacity to kick people out of their homes only to hand over the property to private contractors to build a private mall. The only more surprising and distressing development is that the Supreme Court upheld this heinous action. I can’t imagine that the framers of the constitution thought that public good would be interpreted to rationalize stealing peoples homes and handing them over to a private contractor. There was not even a sense that the community wanted the mall. I spoke personally Tom Londregan, the city's lawyer who informed me that there had been no referendum. That procedurally, a city-wide vote had been bypassed.
If you read the dissents in this opinion you will see that I am not the only one who thinks this sets a precedent of a blank check to any local or state government. If stimulating the economy on any level is rationalization enough to invoke the takings clause, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a taking could not be rationalized. If this is an accurate interpretation of the constitution then why are there even restrictions put on the takings clause? It just cant be right.
