Many blogs are discussing a U.S. Supreme Court case described in this Analysis of Kelo vs. the City of New London. The essence of the dispute is the government’s power of eminent domain vs. the protections against seizure granted individuals by the 5th Amendment. The city government of New London Connecticut wants to take land from holdout homeowners so that Pfizer Corporation can complete building a privately designed research park. The city believes the jobs and tax revenue that should result from this private enterprise justifies taking existing ownership rights away from the remaining citizens.
The troubling aspect of this case is that normally when private land is taken under the power of eminent domain, the ownership of the land transfers to the public as represented by the government. Applied fairly this seizure power provides things like public roads and city parks. In this instance, which is not unique, eminent domain is being used to transfer the ownership rights from one private party to another private party, with the hope that the new private owners will make the land available for public use.
At the heart of the dispute is what the “public use” phrase in the 5th Amendment means. Privately owned and open to the public, for example retail shops and restaurants, is a classic business model that can be considered public use of land. This is very different from publicly owned and used by the public such as a community swimming pool. It is meaningless to use the term “public use” without direct reference to the property being used.
In this case the city government believes the greater good of the community will be served by seizing private homes for the benefit of a private organization. If the amount of revenue a government can receive from a property is the determining factor in exercising the right of eminent domain, then the whole concept of private property is mute. If the government can legitimately transfer ownership rights between private parties based on the highest bidder, then there is no meaningful right of private ownership, only a right to fair compensation as determined by the government.
The troubling aspect of this case is that normally when private land is taken under the power of eminent domain, the ownership of the land transfers to the public as represented by the government. Applied fairly this seizure power provides things like public roads and city parks. In this instance, which is not unique, eminent domain is being used to transfer the ownership rights from one private party to another private party, with the hope that the new private owners will make the land available for public use.
At the heart of the dispute is what the “public use” phrase in the 5th Amendment means. Privately owned and open to the public, for example retail shops and restaurants, is a classic business model that can be considered public use of land. This is very different from publicly owned and used by the public such as a community swimming pool. It is meaningless to use the term “public use” without direct reference to the property being used.
In this case the city government believes the greater good of the community will be served by seizing private homes for the benefit of a private organization. If the amount of revenue a government can receive from a property is the determining factor in exercising the right of eminent domain, then the whole concept of private property is mute. If the government can legitimately transfer ownership rights between private parties based on the highest bidder, then there is no meaningful right of private ownership, only a right to fair compensation as determined by the government.
