Overstepping Eminent Domain
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
—US Constitution: Amendment V
The Supreme Court will soon have a chance to truly defend the Constitutional rights and protect American citizens from the steady march towards oppressive government. Yesterday they heard arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. New London, Connecticut has begun abusing the “right” of eminent domain to wage a war on the working class. In 1998 Pfizer agreed to put in a $270 million research facility, right near the neighborhood that is currently in dispute. The city plans on developing the working-class, waterfront neighborhood of Fort Trumball by replacing the homes with a hotel complex, a conference center, offices, condominiums, and an aquarium. The problem, is, that the seizure here does not constitute the power of eminent domain as it is vaguely described in the Fifth Amendment nor as the Supreme Court interpreted it in 1954. The Fifth Amendment only provides for seizure for public use (highways, parks, etc would fall in this category), but the city wants to take the land to sell it to a developer. In 1954, the Supreme Court expanded this power to allow seizure of property in “blighted” neighborhoods, and since then lower courts have allowed seizures based on improving property to increase taxes and jobs in “distressed” areas. Fort Trumball does not fit this description either. It is a working class neighborhood filled with hard-working homeowners, or, rather, it was until the city bulldozed most of it.
What the city of New London wants to do is essentially kick out those who it views as less profitable to the city and allow those who are already prospering to make even more money. They are overstepping their bounds and essentially saying that the city values rich developers and corporations over individuals. If the Supreme Court allows the decision to stand, the damage to individual rights could be irreparable. At the very best, it could lead to a pseudo-utilitarian authoritarianism where the state kicks out the undesirables to benefit “the economy.” At the worst, it could lead to corrupt abuse of power by city officials, seizing land and selling it to whoever donated the most to their campaign funds. Can you imagine this knock on your door?
“Sorry sir, you’re going to have to leave your home. The city is seizing it under eminent domain to build the mayor a new mansion.”
More info at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/ (the story on CNN) and http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm (the Supreme Court Docket for the case)
—US Constitution: Amendment V
The Supreme Court will soon have a chance to truly defend the Constitutional rights and protect American citizens from the steady march towards oppressive government. Yesterday they heard arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. New London, Connecticut has begun abusing the “right” of eminent domain to wage a war on the working class. In 1998 Pfizer agreed to put in a $270 million research facility, right near the neighborhood that is currently in dispute. The city plans on developing the working-class, waterfront neighborhood of Fort Trumball by replacing the homes with a hotel complex, a conference center, offices, condominiums, and an aquarium. The problem, is, that the seizure here does not constitute the power of eminent domain as it is vaguely described in the Fifth Amendment nor as the Supreme Court interpreted it in 1954. The Fifth Amendment only provides for seizure for public use (highways, parks, etc would fall in this category), but the city wants to take the land to sell it to a developer. In 1954, the Supreme Court expanded this power to allow seizure of property in “blighted” neighborhoods, and since then lower courts have allowed seizures based on improving property to increase taxes and jobs in “distressed” areas. Fort Trumball does not fit this description either. It is a working class neighborhood filled with hard-working homeowners, or, rather, it was until the city bulldozed most of it.
What the city of New London wants to do is essentially kick out those who it views as less profitable to the city and allow those who are already prospering to make even more money. They are overstepping their bounds and essentially saying that the city values rich developers and corporations over individuals. If the Supreme Court allows the decision to stand, the damage to individual rights could be irreparable. At the very best, it could lead to a pseudo-utilitarian authoritarianism where the state kicks out the undesirables to benefit “the economy.” At the worst, it could lead to corrupt abuse of power by city officials, seizing land and selling it to whoever donated the most to their campaign funds. Can you imagine this knock on your door?
“Sorry sir, you’re going to have to leave your home. The city is seizing it under eminent domain to build the mayor a new mansion.”
More info at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/ (the story on CNN) and http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm (the Supreme Court Docket for the case)
posted by Conor at 6:32 PM
2 Comments:
Yeah, this sucks all right. There's an identical dispute going on in Ohio, which is also headed to the Supreme Court (I posted on this a few weeks ago). In that case, same as the one in Connecticut, a federal judge has ruled in favor of the city, which wants to evict homeowners to make room for an office complex and luxury apartments.
This would be intolerable.
Yeah, that sucks a lot. If this is still a good and decent country that respects the rights of citizens then the Supreme Court will overturn those other decisions and tell the city they have a lot of paybacks to make.
It's amazing how far they can stretch the law.
Post a Comment
<< Home