There Goes the Old Neighborhood, to Revitalization
The New York Times ran an interesting piece yesterday about some hold-outs, legally we would call then “tenants at sufferance,” who had their property taken by the government:
Legally, their properties have belonged to the City of New London for four years. The city used its power of eminent domain to take their homes and some 90 other nearby properties in the hope of attracting new development, including improved housing and wealthier people. “I think they don’t want to have to look at us,”
The issue here is whether the government can use its power of eminent domain to take property from citizens so it can be redeveloped. Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The issue here is what is “public use.” There is no problem with the government taking private land to put in a highway, or run power lines, or build a prison, but can the government take land to hand it over to other citizens who are committed to redevelop it?
So far, then answer has been pretty uniformly “Yes.” Courts have found that the government’s interest in seeing economic improvement, and increasing property values (for tax revenue) is an appropriate justification for such takings. This strikes many in this country as wrong: you work all your life, you buy a piece of property, you pay you taxes and follow the law, and your reward is the government taking your property because it wants to see something else done with it.
This issue is expected to come to a head this year when the US Supreme Court decides Kelo vs. New London. Oral argument in that case is set for February 22. For the government, the decision could take away an important tool they use to close slums and turn around urban blight. But for private property owners, the issue is one of abuse: Things have simply gone too far:
In Port Chester, N.Y., a small furniture plant is fighting a state development agency that wants its site for a Home Depot parking lot. And in town after town, people of modest means, often members of minority groups, complain that they are being moved to make way for people who either have more money or, in some cases, lighter skin.
The Times note that their headquarters was created by just such an exercise of eminent domain.
