When City Planners Attack: The Assault On Private Property Rights
By Tony DiPasquale (03/17/04)
Nothing can be more gratifying than the feeling one gets when they purchase their first home. The excitement, the adrenaline, that flows through your veins the moments you can actually walk inside and look to your spouse and say, “it’s ours”. Well the Supreme Court of Connecticut is here to inform residents of their state that private property is not definite and no longer is private.
In an unfortunate, but all too foreseeable event, the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court, those stalwarts of individual liberty, decided that eminent domain should not be limited to merely public use of the land, but should now be expanded to the furtherance of a city’s economic plan.
In Kelo v. City of New London, the plaintiffs were owners of various properties in the city of New London, an area that was targeted to be “revitalized” under a city development plan. 2002 WL 32372999 (Conn.) (soon to be recorded in the Atlantic reporter, second series) In conjunction with a city established development corporation, the plaintiffs were approached to sell their property in furtherance of this goal of rejuvenating the city. This proposal was underway because New London had recently experienced “serious employment declines”, much of which was attributable to the loss of 1900 government sector jobs. Id. at 4.
When the plaintiffs still refused to sell their properties, the government created development corporation, in October 2000, voted to use eminent domain to acquire the property from those refusing to sell. By November 2000, the development corporation began condemnation proceedings on those unwilling sellers.
It should be mentioned that the development corporation will own the area scheduled for development, but lease certain lands to private developers in order to carry out their plans. To add insult to injury, the court records state that one such developer, Corcoran Jennison, is in the midst of negotiations with the city on a ninety-nine year lease on three of the parcels for the staggering amount of $1 per year. Kelo at 3. In turn, the development corporation is forecasting the revitalization plan to create 518-867 construction jobs, 718-1362 direct jobs, and 500-940 indirect jobs, while producing between $680,544 - $1,249,843 in property taxes, all this despite 50% of the land area expected to be tax exempt. Id.
For matters of eminent domain, the Connecticut Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that economic development, including increased tax revenues, could be considered a valid public use. Kelo at 16. But the question should not be whether the benefit amount is adequate in relation to the taking. If we allow governments to take property away from its citizens on the basis of job growth or increased tax revenue, we all become susceptible to the arbitrary whims of those in power.
What becomes of the couple that has worked their entire life in order to enable themselves to retire to a quaint little house near the water? Are we to allow government to kick this couple out of their home because they refuse to sell to a developer who wishes to build magnificent structures that will have the effect of increased revenues to the municipality’s coffers? Should we allow the bureaucrat to deprive them of their home because he “knows best” what to do with their land? Does anyone, for a moment, believe that this is what our Founding Fathers had envisioned would be a taking for the public benefit?
Our Founding Fathers believed that the private ownership of property was an essential part of freedom. In fact, John Adams once commented, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” We have now shattered that concept in favor of one that allows government to be the stewards of what we do with our property. I wish I could be confident that the U.S. Supreme Court, if they should address the matter of eminent domain in the near future, would find the interpretation of public use, like the one put forth by the Connecticut Supreme Court, outrageous, and rectify the situation. However, based on past decisions on eminent domain, and their recent decisions concerning campaign finance reform, not to mention their willingness to cite international law, I cannot help but lack confidence that they will uphold any semblances of individual liberty. Instead, I fear we have just witnessed yet another assault on our precious liberties.
It is time for freedom-loving Americans everywhere to assert their rights by informing their representatives that our votes can no longer be taken for granted; that we will hold their feet to the fire. If not now, when?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tony DiPasquale
