EDC Tackles Issue Of Eminent Domain

By Andrew Gorosko

Members of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) this week addressed public concerns over a recent US Supreme Court decision that upheld Connecticut state law pertaining to the City of New London’s seizure of private homes in the waterfront Fort Trumbull section in order to make way for a private economic development project.

New London seized the homes under the legal principle of eminent domain. Eminent domain is understood as the right of a government to take, or to authorize the taking, of private property for public use, with just compensation being given to the property’s owners.

In June, in a 5-to-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the City of New London has the legal authority to take the homes to allow construction of a city-sanctioned private development project, including office space, which is envisioned as a way to improve the city’s tax base.

The owners of the homes to be seized opposed New London’s efforts to acquire their properties, resulting in legal appeals that led to the US Supreme Court decision.

In making its ruling, the US Supreme Court decided that state governments could enact state legislation that bans property seizures such as the one in New London.

Democratic leaders in the state’s General Assembly have urged that the leaders of cities and towns not use eminent domain for private property seizures until the state legislature considers changing state laws concerning such seizures.

EDC Chairman Chet Hopper on July 19 told EDC members, “We’ve been hearing from a lot of people that this is not good” in reference to the New London property seizures.

What occurred in New London is not the traditional use of eminent domain in which a government seizes property in order to build a public school, create a public park, or construct a public road, he said. Property seizures such as those result in “direct benefits” to the public, he said.

EDC member Kim Danziger said the New London case has caused poor people to fear that wealthy people will be able to obtain their property via eminent domain seizures. People fear that smaller houses would be seized to create sites to build larger houses, he said. Mr Danziger said he does not support the redistribution of privately owned land.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, who attended the EDC session, said that the courts have maintained that eminent domain property seizures need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Distinctions need to be drawn between New London’s seizure of private homes for economic development and the hypothetical seizure of a smaller house in order to build a larger house, he stressed.

Town Attorney David Grogins said, “People see this [eminent domain] as an issue of fundamental fairness.” Eminent domain has become an “emotional issue,” he said.

The power of eminent domain has been a useful tool for governments, he said.

The US Supreme Court’s decision upheld existing Connecticut law in the New London case, he said. The US Supreme Court decision did not alter Connecticut law, he said. New London’s right to seize the waterfront homes had previously been unanimously upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court, Mr Grogins said.

Safeguards exist to protect the interests of private property owners in eminent domain proceedings, he said.

“This is not something that could be used by the town on a whim,” he said.

Mr Rosenthal said the New London case involved that city pursuing a private economic development project, which is intended to generate property tax revenue and create jobs in an economically distressed community.

“We don’t want to do ‘economic development’ at any cost,” Mr Hopper said, noting that there are practical limits on the use of such authority.

Newtown has never arbitrarily seized private property, Mr Rosenthal said. The town has never seized land under the principle of eminent domain for economic development purposes, he said, but added that the town should not unnecessarily restrict itself concerning the power of eminent domain.

“We should never tie our hands and say ‘never,’ because circumstances come up,” he said.

Mr Grogins said he would supply EDC members with copies of state law on eminent domain that applies to Newtown.

The EDC will review the eminent domain issue and hopefully be able to assure the public that private homes will not be seized, Mr Hopper said.

Mr Rosenthal said the state legislature might consider tightening up eminent domain laws affecting the seizure of private property for another private use.

“Sometimes, unfortunately, politicians respond to the passion of the moment,” he said of state politicians’ recent comments on the eminent domain issue.

“We should make some statement explaining where we’re [EDC] at and explaining we’re not planning to take people’s homes, “ Mr Hopper said. The EDC is an advisory agency.

“I’m always in favor of reassuring the public, as long as it doesn’t totally tie your hands,” Mr Rosenthal said.

“I think it was good to discuss this so people don’t get alarmed,” he added.

Mr Hopper said July 20 that following discussions among members, the EDC will issue a written statement on the eminent domain issue, or possibly discuss it again at its August 16 session.