Eminent domain and its abuse - a timeline

1215, England - the Magna Carta establishes the principle of rule of law in England. Many of its provisions restrict the crown's liberty to seize the lands of freeholders. It does not, however, categorically prohibit seizure of private estates by the government.

1625, Holland - Hugo Grotius coins the term "dominium eminens" (eminent domain) to describe the powers of a government to seize land held in fee simple.

1789, United States - the Bill of Rights includes the following language:

...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.

("Public use" at the time being understood to mean roads, bridges and the like.)

1954 - In Berman v. Parker, the United States Supreme Court rules that:

"The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes."

Thus, "public use" is expanded to include urban renewal of blighted neighborhoods, and sale to private interests. This is inspired by the concept of central planning of the economy by the government, a socialist idea thoroughly discredited by history, but still invoked by those who find it convenient.

1980, New Hampshire - Bill Merrill and John Gadd suceesessfully fight the city of Manchester to prevent their homes from being seized for an industrial park. The city claims the properties are "blighted" because of too many trees.

1980, Michigan - General Motors, with the help of Detroit and Hamtramck officials, seizes the neighborhood of Poletown to build an auto plant. The Catholic church agrees to sell two buildings, but a local Reverend leads residents in opposition.

1981, Michigan - the state Supreme Court approves the destruction of Poletown. This case has been widely used as a precedent for other eminent domain seizures on behalf of private companies.

2000, Connecticutt - the New London City Council solicits the New London Development Corporation to redevlop the Fort Trumbull beighborhood, delegating eminent domain power to the NLDC. The rationale: a business use of this land will bring in more tax revenue than than homeowners will. It is generally agreed that the property is *not* blighted. The city's law director rules a petition for a referendum on Fort Trumbull demolition is invalid. There is some reason to believe that corrupt governor John Rowland and Pfizer corporation were involved in the deal.

here we see the final disconnect. More tax revenue benefits whom? Is this a public benefit, let alone a public use? No, it simply benefits the government, its bureaucrats, its corprorate cronies, and its patronage recipients. If anyone else benefits - and that's very unlikely, given the flawed theory behind a planned economy - that's incidental. If private homeowners and small business owners lose all they have worked for - that's not the government's concern.

2002, Riviera Beach - 1700 homes, along with many small businesses, comdemned to make way for Harbor Village project, land is sold to commercial investors for "commercial yachting, shipping and tourism companies." The rationale is that the businesses will in bring in greater tax revenue than the owners.

2002, Illinois - Southwestern Illinois Redevelopment Authority is thwarted by the state Supreme Court in its effort to seize land from National City Environmental to create a parking lot.

2004, Connecticutt - the state Suprem Court affimrs NDLC's right to take the fort Trumbull homes.

2004, Michigan - The Poletown decision is overturned by the state Supreme Courtin County of Wayne v. Hathcock,.

Excerpt:

"Poletown gave cities and developers an incentive to make outrageous, wildly inflated predictions of the impact of the project," explained Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "It was the worst possible incentive. The Poletown project itself also didn't come close to living up to the promises. In all likelihood, it destroyed more jobs than it created."

2005, United States - in Kelo v New London, the Supreme Court approves the Fort Trumbull seizure. Shortly thereafter:

Excerpt:

Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas began legal filings to seize waterfront businesses to make way for an $8 million private boat marina.

Two days after the Kelo decision, Boston City Council President Michael Flaherty called on the mayor of Boston to seize waterfront property from unwilling sellers for a private development project.

The city of Arnold, Mo. proposes razing 30 homes and 15 small businesses for a large home improvement store and a strip mall for which the developer is to receive $21 million in tax-increment financing.

...and many more.

" - Condemning land so you can give it to someone who will pay more taxes on it is NOT a public use.
- Forcing families to leave their homes to build beach side resorts is NOT public use.
- A shiny new Wal-Mart, while used by the public, is NOT a public use.
- A new parking lot for a racetrack is NOT a public use."

- Phil Mappe

Extracts from the Supreme Court dissenting opinion:

Excerpts:



The record contains scant evidence to suggest that the predicted public benefit will be realized with any reasonable certainty. To the contrary, . . . at the time of the takings, there was no signed agreement to develop the properties, the economic climate was poor and [contained nothing] that would ensure achievement of the intended public benefit if development were to occur.

A close examination of the proposed plan from a financial standpoint also suggests that there were only limited prospects of a public benefit at the time of the taking. . . . there apparently was no consideration of the loss in revenue that could result from the relocation of former residents and taxpayers out of the area during the ten, twenty or even thirty years that might be needed to fully implement the development plan. . . .

The record, therefore, fails to establish that there was any momentum in the project from a development standpoint or any reasonable development prospects for parcels 3 and 4A at the time of the takings.

. . . all of the evidence suggests that the real estate market is depressed and the development plan itself contains no detailed provisions to ensure that the future use will serve the public interest.

. . . the evidence is not clear and convincing that the property taken actually will be used for a public purpose

. . . it is entirely unknown whether the public interest will be served. There are no assurances of a public use in the development plan; there was no signed development agreement at the time of the takings; and all of the evidence suggests that the economic climate will not support the project so that the public benefits can be realized

. . . fails to protect adequately the rights of private property owners.



Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.american.html#20050717

Where politicians stand on Kelo

Senator Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced bill S.1313 to limit eminent domain abuse.

The House has voted to deny federal funds to any city abuseing eminent domain in the Kelo fashion.

Excerpts:

The House measure, which passed 231 to 189, would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall. Historically, eminent domain has been used mainly for public purposes such as highways or airports.

The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said they will push for a more inclusive measure that would apply to all federal funds...

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) introduced a similar measure and immediately drew a Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), as well as Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is number three in his party's leadership. The House bill is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). Its Democratic co-sponsors include Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Peter A. DeFazio (Ore.).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."

Full transcript
of Pelosi's bizarre remarks

Excerpt:

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

I say:

Property is property, theft is theft, the Supreme Court is *not* God, the Nancy Pelosi *is* a stupid, stupid bitch.

Concerned citizens, check out the Castle Coalition

The League of Private Property Voters's rankings of politicians' voting records


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.american.html#20050703