Limiting The Reach Of Eminent Domain

When the US Supreme Court broke new legal ground last month in its Kelo vs New London eminent domain decision, property owners everywhere felt the chill. The nation’s highest court had declared that state or local governments have every right to seize private property and award it to private developers if they can show an overall economic benefit in doing so. So now, in addition to exercising eminent domain rights for public purposes such as the development of roads, schools, and public parks, the government can now take your home and property for the development of shopping malls, hotels, and private office buildings.

Fortunately, governments also have the right to regulate their own actions with regard to eminent domain, and now there is a new urgency for them to do just that.

The reaction to this decision has been universally negative (except in New London, which has the same population as Newtown in one-tenth the space with a Coast Guard Academy and two colleges that don’t pay property taxes). It has united conservatives and libertarians, who view property rights as the sacred foundation of our democratic society, and liberals, who see this decision as yet another step toward a corporate American oligarchy where business interests always trump the interests of the average citizen. The result is a rush toward locally legislated remedies.

Already, Milford’s Board of Aldermen has enacted an ordinance prohibiting the exercise of eminent domain for the acquisition of certain properties for private development. On Monday Democratic legislative leaders urged municipalities to hold off on any plans to take property since the legislature will likely act to bring greater  “fairness and balance” to state eminent domain laws in response to the US Supreme Court ruling. And Republican Gov M. Jodi Rell backed Democratic calls for a special session to make necessary changes to state law, saying that the rights of property owners should come first.

Even the chairman of Newtown’s Economic Development Commission, Chet Hopper, told The Bee this week that the ruling sanctioned “an extreme act of property confiscation,” and that he would be urging the local EDC to formally oppose such actions in Newtown.

Obviously, five out of nine justices on the US Supreme Court found a constitutional basis for allowing New London to proceed with the condemnation of a neighborhood of private homes to benefit private developers. But for most people, this ruling shatters the traditional expectation of privacy and security that in our society is supposed to come with homeownership. These homes in New London were not blighted. The new “owners” of these taken properties will have no further obligation to the public other than to pay their property taxes. They can charge people admission or charge them with trespassing if they wish.

We hope Connecticut’s leaders can maintain a consensus on this issue long enough to enact legislation that limits this new and alarming governmental prerogative. As they do this, we urge them to keep in mind Abraham Lincoln’s powerful definition of democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. The highest rights and privileges in Connecticut, and every other state, need always to reside with the people — not merely with those who can wring the most money from a piece of land.