Eminent domain
There’s a section of the fifth amendment of the
Constitution
that is known as the "takings" clause. You've all heard it before -
the government cannot take private property for public use without just
compensation. Today, for the first time in over 50 years, the US
Supreme court was asked to opine on the tool of local governments to
"take,"
also known as eminent domain. And Kelo v. New
London is the case.
Those of you who remember me my senior year of college probably (hopefully? maybe?) remember that I had my head buried in The [New London] Day that year. I won’t bore you with all the background and details of the conflict but it essentially comes down to this: the City’s rationale for using eminent domain was that it was needed to bring economic revitalization to New London. Ends justify the means. The NLDC kept using utilitarian arguments: “the greater good” for the “greatest number.”
It is hard to believe that the government can take your property and hand it right over to a private developer, especially if all you see of your home sweet home in phase III-B site plans are two parking spaces, probably reserved for hot-shot Pfizer execs. Several property owners responded by resisting the City’s demands that they sell their home. A support group was formed called The Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull. Eventually a pro bono libertarian legal group called the Institute for Justice took on the case.
That was in 2001.
I thought it was a neat thing to study at the time. Now it’s being heard in the high court! This is incredibly exciting for me, both in terms of past and present. The most vivid part of my research was interviewing the residents of Fort Trumbull - the very people that presented their case today. It is making me all sorts of nostalgic for college, which is refreshing for a change. And it goes right to the heart of “wicked” planning dilemmas - the Executive Director of the American Planning Association wrote an editorial in favor of the City in USA Today.
At the time, I was pretty much on the side of the homeowners. I still am, though I admit that there’s a part of me that sees the role of planning now as being much more about large-scale issues that sometimes mean tough choices. I sympathize with the City’s desire to create a catalyst for economic change. I still believe, though, that it was not necessary: Pfizer could have built their facility without the razing of Fort Trumbull. Instead of getting 90 acres, the City could have offered them 80, and brought in some other sweeteners to compensate for any loss they might have felt as a result.
I’m still trying to figure out what happened today in DC, so far this site seems to have the most current information. And apparently they think that the City is going to win.
“Marty reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today's property rights cases overwhelmingly. In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O'Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn't presented in Kelo, but the Court's opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.”
Those of you who remember me my senior year of college probably (hopefully? maybe?) remember that I had my head buried in The [New London] Day that year. I won’t bore you with all the background and details of the conflict but it essentially comes down to this: the City’s rationale for using eminent domain was that it was needed to bring economic revitalization to New London. Ends justify the means. The NLDC kept using utilitarian arguments: “the greater good” for the “greatest number.”
It is hard to believe that the government can take your property and hand it right over to a private developer, especially if all you see of your home sweet home in phase III-B site plans are two parking spaces, probably reserved for hot-shot Pfizer execs. Several property owners responded by resisting the City’s demands that they sell their home. A support group was formed called The Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull. Eventually a pro bono libertarian legal group called the Institute for Justice took on the case.
That was in 2001.
I thought it was a neat thing to study at the time. Now it’s being heard in the high court! This is incredibly exciting for me, both in terms of past and present. The most vivid part of my research was interviewing the residents of Fort Trumbull - the very people that presented their case today. It is making me all sorts of nostalgic for college, which is refreshing for a change. And it goes right to the heart of “wicked” planning dilemmas - the Executive Director of the American Planning Association wrote an editorial in favor of the City in USA Today.
At the time, I was pretty much on the side of the homeowners. I still am, though I admit that there’s a part of me that sees the role of planning now as being much more about large-scale issues that sometimes mean tough choices. I sympathize with the City’s desire to create a catalyst for economic change. I still believe, though, that it was not necessary: Pfizer could have built their facility without the razing of Fort Trumbull. Instead of getting 90 acres, the City could have offered them 80, and brought in some other sweeteners to compensate for any loss they might have felt as a result.
I’m still trying to figure out what happened today in DC, so far this site seems to have the most current information. And apparently they think that the City is going to win.
“Marty reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today's property rights cases overwhelmingly. In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O'Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn't presented in Kelo, but the Court's opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.”