(first published on March 7, 2005)
In the current session of the United States Supreme Court, several high-profile issues are up in the air. Much has been written about this week's decision regarding the death penalty for those who were minors when they murdered, and the nation now awaits a decision on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments. Flying a bit under the radar, the Supreme Court is also now considering whether local governments may use their power to seize private property for the sole reason of granting that property to other private individuals or corporations that might create what the government believes is a "better use" of the land, which means the use that will generate the most tax revenues for the local government. What the justices are considering is not whether city governments can take land by the doctrine of eminent domain to create needed roads or parks or military bases, but whether local governments can, as posed in a question during oral arguments by Justice O'Connor, seize private property to turn "a Motel 6 into a Ritz-Carlton Hotel." The answer from the attorney for the city in question was "Yes."
The city in question is New London, Connecticut. Seven private homeowners face losing their houses so that the city can give their property to developers. Near their homes sits a pharmaceutical plant owned by Pfizer, the makers of Viagra. Other developers, not connected to Pfizer, see the opportunity to "enhance" the Pfizer property by building office buildings and hotels nearby the plant. Unfortunately for the developers, human beings happened to be living on that land.
The word developers is not used here to conjure an automatically demonized set of people. One can hardly blame developers with economic interests from utilizing the law to their advantage. One can, however, blame the courts for allowing the authority and force of government to force people from their homes and businesses simply because they think that some other entity would generate more revenue. That is what is at stake in this Supreme Court case.
Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice (www.ij.org) and the attorney who represented the New London homeowners before the Supreme Court took time to talk to Free Market News. He has represented the seven homeowners from the beginning of their attempts to keep the homes they'd lived in for years, and is proud that "seven of seven were still in it" when the case went to the Supreme Court. "They have hung together," Bullock said.
"It was a bit of a blur," Bullock admitted when asked what is was like to argue before the US Supreme Court for the first time, but he had a firm grasp of what happened during the hearing. "The Court asked probing questions of both sides, and seems divided" on the issue, he said. Bullock prudently declined to predict the outcome based upon the questions he and the city's attorney were asked, but noted that most of the justices (with the exception of Justice Ginsburg) seemed concerned with the ramifications of the case.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, in part, that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The questions before the Court, therefore, are whether "public use" extends to a city's desire to expand its tax revenue by moving a person from her home in favor of an office building, and whether or not what such cities offer by force of law amounts to "just compensation."
Bullock notes that in the New London case, the city has spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions" to pursue this case to the Supreme Court, all over 1.54 acres of land upon which the seven homeowners live. The project envisioned by New London's leaders would encompass 90 acres. It seems that the notion of scaling the project down by 1.7% is not acceptable when they can just seize the remaining 1.54 acres. The only question left is whether or not the highest court in the land will allow it.
Attorney Bullock remains optimistic about the outcome of this case, but in any event has many battles to fight. His organization also operates the website www.castlecoalition.org, at which one can find a report reflecting that in a five year period between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2003, over ten thousand instances of abuse of eminent domain power were documented.
A visit to that website is worthwhile, as the downloadable report breaks down the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests (as opposed to traditionally public projects) has likely taken place near you.
In the current session of the United States Supreme Court, several high-profile issues are up in the air. Much has been written about this week's decision regarding the death penalty for those who were minors when they murdered, and the nation now awaits a decision on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments. Flying a bit under the radar, the Supreme Court is also now considering whether local governments may use their power to seize private property for the sole reason of granting that property to other private individuals or corporations that might create what the government believes is a "better use" of the land, which means the use that will generate the most tax revenues for the local government. What the justices are considering is not whether city governments can take land by the doctrine of eminent domain to create needed roads or parks or military bases, but whether local governments can, as posed in a question during oral arguments by Justice O'Connor, seize private property to turn "a Motel 6 into a Ritz-Carlton Hotel." The answer from the attorney for the city in question was "Yes."
The city in question is New London, Connecticut. Seven private homeowners face losing their houses so that the city can give their property to developers. Near their homes sits a pharmaceutical plant owned by Pfizer, the makers of Viagra. Other developers, not connected to Pfizer, see the opportunity to "enhance" the Pfizer property by building office buildings and hotels nearby the plant. Unfortunately for the developers, human beings happened to be living on that land.
The word developers is not used here to conjure an automatically demonized set of people. One can hardly blame developers with economic interests from utilizing the law to their advantage. One can, however, blame the courts for allowing the authority and force of government to force people from their homes and businesses simply because they think that some other entity would generate more revenue. That is what is at stake in this Supreme Court case.
Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice (www.ij.org) and the attorney who represented the New London homeowners before the Supreme Court took time to talk to Free Market News. He has represented the seven homeowners from the beginning of their attempts to keep the homes they'd lived in for years, and is proud that "seven of seven were still in it" when the case went to the Supreme Court. "They have hung together," Bullock said.
"It was a bit of a blur," Bullock admitted when asked what is was like to argue before the US Supreme Court for the first time, but he had a firm grasp of what happened during the hearing. "The Court asked probing questions of both sides, and seems divided" on the issue, he said. Bullock prudently declined to predict the outcome based upon the questions he and the city's attorney were asked, but noted that most of the justices (with the exception of Justice Ginsburg) seemed concerned with the ramifications of the case.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, in part, that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The questions before the Court, therefore, are whether "public use" extends to a city's desire to expand its tax revenue by moving a person from her home in favor of an office building, and whether or not what such cities offer by force of law amounts to "just compensation."
Bullock notes that in the New London case, the city has spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions" to pursue this case to the Supreme Court, all over 1.54 acres of land upon which the seven homeowners live. The project envisioned by New London's leaders would encompass 90 acres. It seems that the notion of scaling the project down by 1.7% is not acceptable when they can just seize the remaining 1.54 acres. The only question left is whether or not the highest court in the land will allow it.
Attorney Bullock remains optimistic about the outcome of this case, but in any event has many battles to fight. His organization also operates the website www.castlecoalition.org, at which one can find a report reflecting that in a five year period between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2003, over ten thousand instances of abuse of eminent domain power were documented.
A visit to that website is worthwhile, as the downloadable report breaks down the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests (as opposed to traditionally public projects) has likely taken place near you.
