law.com - During 'Kelo' Arguments, Justices Feel for Homeowners
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
Here's a good summary of the argument yesterday in Kelo v. City of New London. It captures the bind some of the justices seem to sense they are in: they sympathize with the owners, and they get that the "public use" language has to mean something other than the city leasing the land to developers for $1 per year, in the hope that tax revenues will go up. But they are reluctant to overrule two precedents and thereby throw a monkey wrench in the redevelopment efforts of cities all over America, which are based on the same highly questionable practice. It is a bit like saying, "Well, legally you are right, Ms. Kelo, but if we rule in your favor it will cause a disaster, because cities all over the nation are abusing the eminent domain power, too." This is portrayed as a case of small property owners versus the city. But in reality it is developers versus small property owners.
1 comment:
And that's really the rub. It seems to me that the justices that were skeptical of Kelo were getting hung up on New London's broader condition. As an aside I think exploring the eminent domain case of the Texas Rangers' new stadium from a decade ago would be interesting although that case stemmed from property owners being under-compensated rather than being flat out opposed to condemnation altogether. It makes you wonder how many convention centers, office buildings and so on have been built using this law. On the other hand, what about when a private entity seeks eminent domain for a typically public use, given that we're moving more towards private roads and private rail transportation? A consortium had a workable plan for private high speed rail in Texas in the early 1990s, but Southwest Airlines organized farmers along the route to effectively block eminent domain. If this case tosses out eminent domain for private actors at a time that we're moving towards treating transportation as a scarce resource best handled by the private sector, it could force transportation back into the public sector.
Post a Comment