Sunday, June 26, 2005
Changing "e" to "im" doesn't make it so
Local governments have long had the right of eminent domain. Thus my puzzlement over the huge fuss resulting from last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that New London (Connecticut) may rely on eminent domain to confiscate private homes so that ready-and-waiting private developers can develop the land for private projects. Eminent domain had been thought to be limited to public projects so apparently what creeped some people out about this decision was the expansion of the concept to include sports stadiums, hotels and offices. A neighborhood described as "middle class residential" by some will be razed for a business center (i.e. hotels, offices, etc.) and up-market residences. Here is how the NYPost fanned the flames: "[i]n essence, the court expanded the requirement of "public use" — the longtime limit on eminent domain — to anything that supposedly enhances economic activity. No more need for a truly public need — such as highways, parks and bridges."

But even if this is an excessive extension of eminent domain, it isn't imminent, because even the smallest of these kinds of projects takes lots of time to conceive and plan. There's lots of time to change and/or modify eminent domain laws via the legislature, where the decisions should be made anyway. And, hey, look at the bright side - if GWB gets to appoint even one Supreme Court justice, he or she will most likely be more conservative than liberal, i.e. a champion of privacy and personal ownership rights and therefore someone who'd flip votes like this to 4-5 the other way.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | | posted by jau at 9:10 AM


0 more:

Post a Comment

< home