Suzette Kelo Won't Get Her Little Pink House Back, But...
...But maybe other citizens won't have their homes taken from them.
The sanctity of private property and the right of the owner to do as he or she wishes with it are vital in a free, democratic society.
There's been an important development in this arena -- the area of "eminent domain," the sinisterly banal name for the government stealing your property from you.
But first the history and some detail on eminent domain. Ilya Somin writes at Reason:
In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that the government can take private property and transfer it to a new private owner for purposes of promoting "economic development." Although the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that the government can only take property for a "public use," a narrow 5-4 majority reaffirmed the rule that virtually any potential benefit to the public counts as a public use. The government does not even have to prove that the supposed benefit will ever actually materialize. As a result, the New London Development Corporation--a private entity authorized by the City of New London--was able to condemn fifteen residential properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. One of them was Susette Kelo's "little pink house" ...Perhaps even worse, the ill-conceived development project that led to the comdemnation fell through. Even today, almost fourteen years after the litigation ended, nothing has been built on the condemned land. Feral cats are the only regular users of the properties where homes once stood.
Now there's a bill under consideration by the Connecticut state legislature that would stop the state from using eminent domain to take property that would be used for any project that generates income for a private commercial purpose.
Somin explains:
This would forbid takings for privately owned "economic development" (as in the Kelo case) and probably also for the alleviation of "blight" broadly defined as anything that potentially constrains economic growth. It would not, I think, forbid takings for privately owned public utilities. But such condemnations are both more defensible and less prone to abuse than takings for "economic development," which are easily captured by powerful interest groups and routinely fail to produce the promised economic benefits--as happened in the Kelo case itself.
The passage of this thing is "not a done deal," Somin explains. (Seems there's some crony capitalist opposition that could rise up.)
But the existence of this bill is a positive thing, and as Somin, a legal scholar and professor, writes:
In my view, the Kelo decision is based on a serious misinterpretation of the Constitution. I hope the Supreme Court will eventually overrule it. But, in the meantime, state governments should not act to curb such abuses without waiting for federal judges to do it for them. Even if "economic development" takings are not unconstitutional, they are still harmful and unjust.
One thing I think conservatives and liberals can agree on is that Kelo was wrongly decided. I'd like to see another case come up to the current Court and see if they will reconsider, but until then, it's good that Connecticut is taking action to solve the problem at their level. More states need to do this. "Public use" should mean just that, and no more.
An aside: I read an old article last night about the building of a local interstate spur. Part of the article centered on the acquisition of the land for the right of way. At the site of a major intersection, two small factories existed. One of the factories had heavy machinery that was anchored in a thick concrete foundation and was not movable. The owner of the property demanded that the state include the value of the machinery in its compensation. The state had to find someone who had expertise in assessing the value of that specialized machinery, and it took several months. Eventually they agreed on a value, and the property owner signed off on a sale. There were some other considerations; the factory's business was seasonal and it would cost more for the owner to move during the production season. The state agreed that, at the time the deal was signed, the owner could continue to occupy the property rent-free until the end of the production season, at which time the factory would move out and the state could demolish the property.
Cousin Dave at April 24, 2019 6:44 AM
Some other states saw Kelo and acted to protect homeowners.
I am still amazed nobody on that city council died from their greed.
Radwaste at April 24, 2019 8:24 AM
In this case I must nitpick: you've got an extra "not" in that last paragraph, which reverses its intended meaning. It should read:
In my view, the Kelo decision is based on a serious misinterpretation of the Constitution. I hope the Supreme Court will eventually overrule it. But, in the meantime, state governments should [ ] act to curb such abuses without waiting for federal judges to do it for them. Even if "economic development" takings are not unconstitutional, they are still harmful and unjust.
jdgalt at April 24, 2019 9:43 AM
Just to set the record straight, SCOTUS has being doing decisions like Kelo for a long time. It has long been established that eminent domain includes the right to seize property for the benefit of private contractors. There is nothing new with the Kelo decision.
Patrick at April 24, 2019 4:46 PM
Reminds me of the time we had a revolution.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 24, 2019 5:30 PM
Leave a comment