Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

I do not pretend to be a lawyer. While many of my friends in undergrad chose to enter the legal arena, I chose the second least honorable field: politics. If you think about it, law and politics are inseparably woven together. Many lawyers become politicians and many politicians need lawyers. I promise I�ll end the sarcasm here (maybe).

Among the myriad of legal issues in the United States today, there are few as politically charged as the subject of eminent domain. In layman�s terms, eminent domain is the act of government seizing private property when efforts to purchase the property from the owner have failed. There can be many reasons for eminent domain, usually for the purpose of public use (utilities, roads, national defense, �economic development,� etc.), often loosely defined. This article gives a good overview of the process.

The issue of eminent domain made headlines in 2005 when the Supreme Court decided in the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London that it was acceptable for the city to seize private property (after negotiations to purchase the properties failed) for the purpose of selling that property to developers to redevelop an blighted (in the city�s eyes) part of town.

The case is particularly important to me because New London, CT is my hometown. I remember as a teenager reading and watching the debates between private citizens and the unelected New London Development Corporation (a quasi-public entity who received the funds from the sale) and how the City of New London ignored the rights of property owners in favor of a dream of becoming �the next Baltimore.� In case you were wondering, Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant who benefited the most from the eminent domain recently decided to vacate their New London complex after a merger with Wyeth.

This was not the only time New London ran after dollar signs. In the mid 1990s, the New London Zoning Board told my parents who had founded a small Assemblies of God church in the downtown that they could not buy any property in the city because �there were enough churches in New London.� Never mind that such a decision violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and probably the then recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993). The city was in desperate need of tax revenues for its pet projects and they despised the fact that churches were tax-exempt (as they should be). Today the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 specifically protects churches against the abuses of activist zoning boards and where there is still abuse, organizations like The Beckett Fund, Alliance Defense Fund and American Center for Law and Justice continue to win case after case in favor of religious assemblies.

Despite 43 states passing laws attempting to limit the effects of Kelo, local governments seem emboldened by the Supreme Court case. In a January 4 column, George Will in the Washington Post wrote an op-ed about ongoing abuses in New York. In one case, developers are trying to define condos worth close to $600,000 as blighted in effort to pave the way for a multi-billion dollar development project (including a new home for the New Jersey Nets � do not get me started on taxpayer subsidies for private stadiums). The New York Supreme Court sided with the developers in a 6-1 decision.

Will also talks about a Columbia University attempt to expand, but was resisted by local businesses that did not want to close their doors. The university tried to have to properties seized by the city of Manhattan by defining the properties as blighted. Thankfully a state court held in favor of the taxpayers in this one.

The abuse isn�t just limited to New York.

In Washington, property owners are fighting against Sea Tac who wants their land as part of a light rail line. The owners paid over $10 million for the property, but are being offered only $8.6 million. Now the city wants to claim the land via eminent domain.
In Florida, a man is charging the government with deliberately lowering the value of his property in order to offer less to homeowners when the government wanted to expand the size of Everglades National Park.
In St. Louis, the city is letting private developers clear out traditional African-American communities in order to redevelop the part of the city in the developer�s vision.
In Corona, California the city has extended their eminent domain authority by twelve years in a move that could affect businesses across the city.

What does this mean for ordinary citizens like us? Politicians that do not respect the Constitution rule of law and natural rights are going to be more likely to abuse the practice of eminent domain, if they decide to use it at all. Conservatives and libertarians can hash out if there is such thing as a need for eminent domain. My purpose is not to solve that debate. What is clear, however, is that eminent domain abuses are on the rise and it is an issue that every voter should consider when electing local officials.

The need is great for public officials that do err on the side of the people and not special interests or bloated bureaucracies. The stakes are high when you consider the kind of authority local governments exercise when it comes to eminent domain, but they become all the more high when you consider that many of these abusers of the public trust become candidates for higher office. The same attitudes in Congress today are reflected in many City Councils and Town and County Commissions: the politician knows best and there�s nothing you can do to stop me. Thankfully neither is true, particularly the latter. All it takes is a few voters that care and a few good candidates to run.

About the Author

Douglas is American Majority's Director of Information Technology, but also wears many other hats. An avid New York Mets and Sci-Fi (Star Trek, Babylon 5) fan, Douglas spends his evenings spending time with his lovely wife (and soon-arrival son) and working towards a seminary degree. Douglas lives in Charlotte, NC.

Continued at the following web site:� http://americanmajority.org/feature-content/eminent-domain-the-case-for-liberty-minded-public-officials/