Wednesday, July 06, 2005
In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court went to far.
While I agree eminent domain is a needed economic development tool, I believe it is wielded too freely.
Thus I do not agree with the Supreme Courts (very close) 5-4 decision last month involving an economic development project in New London, Connecticut.
The court held that promoting economic development is a "traditional and long-accepted government function" and therefore falls under local governments' authority to use eminent domain to take property from an unwilling seller for just compensation.
In my opinion, non-elected boards (especially redevelopment agencies) as well as local and state governments that carry out eminent domain use it too freely.
In the case at hand, the hold-outs lived in non-deteriorated homes they had occupied for many years. In one instance the woman was born and lived in the house since 1919. The location of their homes was not even a key piece of the overall redevelopment plan. There was no harm to the community in working around their homes.
Logic and humanized planning dictates incorporating those already there into the plan where possible. I hope the city and their legal team were just trying to make a (big) point and eviction notices are not forthcoming.
The court went to far. If a property or group of properties are not in disrepair, and are not the KEY to a plan -- don't take it. Go around it. Plan around it.
This case went too far in setting a standard for eminent domain.
Now politicians that can't balance their own check books, and consultants who draw pretty plans can boot you and I if it serves the public good in their opinion - using our tax dollars. Not a tool I want my town wielding, do you?
But, I would recommend to anyone to read the case decision yourself. They are very interesting and can be found at the supreme courts website. Many cases are very close, and no matter what your politics don't think for a second the justices don't really analyze the cases. They do and their analysis is a good read. It's a good process, best read from the original source.
Thus I do not agree with the Supreme Courts (very close) 5-4 decision last month involving an economic development project in New London, Connecticut.
The court held that promoting economic development is a "traditional and long-accepted government function" and therefore falls under local governments' authority to use eminent domain to take property from an unwilling seller for just compensation.
In my opinion, non-elected boards (especially redevelopment agencies) as well as local and state governments that carry out eminent domain use it too freely.
In the case at hand, the hold-outs lived in non-deteriorated homes they had occupied for many years. In one instance the woman was born and lived in the house since 1919. The location of their homes was not even a key piece of the overall redevelopment plan. There was no harm to the community in working around their homes.
Logic and humanized planning dictates incorporating those already there into the plan where possible. I hope the city and their legal team were just trying to make a (big) point and eviction notices are not forthcoming.
The court went to far. If a property or group of properties are not in disrepair, and are not the KEY to a plan -- don't take it. Go around it. Plan around it.
This case went too far in setting a standard for eminent domain.
Now politicians that can't balance their own check books, and consultants who draw pretty plans can boot you and I if it serves the public good in their opinion - using our tax dollars. Not a tool I want my town wielding, do you?
But, I would recommend to anyone to read the case decision yourself. They are very interesting and can be found at the supreme courts website. Many cases are very close, and no matter what your politics don't think for a second the justices don't really analyze the cases. They do and their analysis is a good read. It's a good process, best read from the original source.
