Eminent Domain —

Legitimacy Of Property Seizures For Economic Development Slated For Discussion

By Andrew Gorosko

The US Supreme Court’s recent decision that expands the scope of government seizures of private property for compensation under the principle of eminent domain is slated as a topic for discussion when the town’s Economic Development Commission meets next week.

In June, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of New London has the legal authority to take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood on the city’s waterfront 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 Supreme Court decision.

Eminent domain generally has been construed 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 making its ruling, the Supreme Court decided that state governments could enact state legislation that bans property seizures such as the one in New London.

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

Newtown Economic Development Commission (EDC) Chairman Chet Hopper said this week that the commission will discuss the eminent domain issue when it meets at 7:30 pm on Tuesday, July 19, at the Multipurpose Center on Riverside Road.

Asked whether he foresees a situation in which the town would use eminent domain to take private property for an economic development project, Mr Hopper said, “I don’t foresee it. I would personally be opposed to it.”

Mr Hopper said he will submit a resolution to the commission for its consideration, which would state the panel’s opposition to such seizures of private property for economic development projects. Mr Hopper termed the New London case “an extreme act of property confiscation.”

EDC members often have spirited discussions on economic development issues. The panel is an advisory agency.

The EDC chairman noted that state governments retain the right to modify their respective state laws pertaining to eminent domain. The state’s Office of Legislative Research estimates that eminent domain is mentioned in 80 Connecticut laws.

The use of eminent domain is intended for the “direct benefit” of the public, such as the taking of private property for the construction of a public school or a road, Mr Hopper said.

 Whether the taking of private property for an economic development project would benefit a municipality’s tax base is an “assumption,” Mr Hopper said. The private developer that would redevelop the seized land would profit from the transaction, he noted.

Mr Hopper said it is unclear what constitutes “fair compensation” for a seized property. He asked whether fair compensation amounts to the current market value of the property, or some estimated future market value.

“It’s an important issue,” Mr Hopper said.

Development Director

Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker has a different view of the eminent domain issue.

In the past, town officials have had few discussions concerning eminent domain, she said. The topic has come up briefly in the context of the town’s desire for economic development projects in the Hawleyville section, she said.

“I don’t think it’s out of the question,” Ms Stocker said of the town potentially seizing private property for economic development projects.

The Supreme Court ruling provides municipalities with the authority to pursue such an action, she said.

It appears that the state legislature will address the limits of eminent domain in Connecticut, she added.

Ms Stocker said it is unclear to her why municipal governments and state governments would want to enact self-imposed restrictions on the scope of eminent domain following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

On July 11, the Milford Board of Alderman passed an ordinance limiting the use of eminent domain there to acquire certain private properties for private redevelopment. That ordinance would be superceded by any state legislation approved on the subject.

Ms Stocker said that although recent Supreme Court decision concerns an economic development project in New London, the ruling has nationwide implications.

Ms Stocker pointed out that a municipality’s pursuit of an eminent domain property seizure is a long, complex process. Such seizures are “extreme” actions, she said.

It is unclear what impact the Supreme Court’s decision would have on Newtown, but it seems clear that that some municipal governments would be more inclined to pursue private property seizures for economic development projects, she said.

Ms Stocker said she believes that municipal governments should hold in reserve the right to seize private property for economic development projects, in the event that such seizures are deemed necessary.