Many Words, But No Action,

On Eminent Domain

Last year, a sharply divided Supreme Court somehow managed to unify conservatives and liberals over the issue of eminent domain. In its Kelo v. New London decision, the high court endorsed the seizure of private property by a municipality on behalf of private developers for the sake of economic development. Conservatives saw the ruling as a usurpation of private property rights, which is the foundation of the American dream and prime bulwark against the predations of big government. Liberals saw it as just another instance of corporate interests exploiting the powerlessness of the little guy. A Quinnipiac University poll last year found that 89 percent of Connecticut voters favored state legislation restricting the use of eminent domain.

With this kind of consensus, politicians were tripping over themselves last summer to lead the charge for eminent domain reform. Towns and cities prepared ordinances prohibiting or severely restricting the taking of private property for private development projects. The state legislature’s Democratic leaders, however, cautioned local governments not to address the issue through a patchwork of municipal ordinances, but to await the enactment of an overarching state law, bringing greater “fairness and balance” to the eminent domain process. They promised such legislation would be a top priority for them. They then called for a special session to address the issue.

Of course, we now know that the Democrats’ promises were hollow. The regular legislative session ended last week, and even though this state sits at the center of the national debate on eminent domain, Connecticut still has no law curbing its most egregious applications.

Legislatures in 18 other states have passed eminent domain reform legislation in response to the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, and similar bills are pending in several other states. Of all the issues swirling around Hartford this year, this is the one issue, above all others, where lawmakers had a clear mandate to act. In failing to do so, they failed the people of Connecticut. Surely, between now and November, this fecklessness will be portrayed in their words as discernment and leadership. But by their actions, they have now taught us what value to place upon their words.