| USA Today MONEY DEBATE 03/21/2001 Property seizures overstep boundaries of 'public use' |
Correction ran 4/26/2001: Land that was seized by eminent domain for a
redevelopment project in New London., Conn., will not be used to build a health club,
as reported in a story Jan. 26 and an editorial March 21. That land is to be used for an
office building and parking lot. The health club will be built on a parcel within the project
that was not taken by eminent domain .
In New London, Conn., the local development agency wants to seize a handful of
homes to make room for a health club. In Mississippi, the state wants to take 28 acres
from an extended family to provide parking for a new Nissan truck factory. Across the
road, it wants another 325 acres for the factory's parts suppliers.
Normally, private developers would have to convince sometimes reluctant property
owners to sell and would have to pay them enough to make a deal. But in a half-dozen
recent instances in the Northeast alone, local and state leaders have tried to seize
private property and then turn it over to developers for private use. And while no one
tracks how frequently eminent domain is used on behalf of private developers, activists
such as the Institute for Justice, which fights land seizures, report an increasing
number of complaints.
The Constitution permits seizing private property for "public use" with "just
compensation." Traditionally, this has been used to acquire land for schools, parks
and roads.
Beginning in the 1950s, though, the courts started expanding the notion of public use to
include projects with indirect public benefits, such as urban redevelopment. The
number of agencies using the power has also grown. In some states, even cable TV
companies have the authority to exercise eminent domain .
Doing so doesn't take much, either. Officials need only declare that a piece of property
is blighted, which in some cities can be no more than a lack of adequate parking. In
Pittsburgh, property was declared blighted because the area had inadequate planning
and a lack of air and light.
Proponents argue that economic development is the functional equivalent of public
use, because jobs and taxes will flow forth from redeveloped property. They say
eminent domain has historically been used for such purposes -- including acquiring
land for 19th century railroad barons -- and that without it, owners of strategically placed
parcels would take taxpayers to the cleaners.
But there are key differences. When the government was opening up the West 150
years ago, the railroads served a primary public use -- in that case, transportation --
that tony health clubs in city centers do not.
It's not as if the new use is always appreciably superior, either. In 1998, the city of
Merriam, Kan., used eminent domain to seize land being occupied by a used-car lot. In
the end, the property went to a new-car dealer who had failed to negotiate his own sale
with the previous landowner.
Fortunately, courts, lawmakers and communities are starting to rein in the most
egregious land grabs. In 1998, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a state
development agency could not take an elderly woman's home and two businesses in
Atlantic City in order to provide additional parking for the Trump Hotel and Casino.
Pittsburgh has abandoned plans to seize 64 buildings to make room for a Chicago
developer.
Still, eminent domain is used too carelessly. Trying to throw an elderly woman out of
her home to build parking for a casino is an act of almost cartoonish dimensions. But it
makes a valuable point about the fundamentals of the power. It should be used
sparingly, for pronounced public use and benefit, informed by respect for private
property, regardless of who owns it or how it is used.
Land grabs that benefit private economic interests while generating only trickle-down
public benefits (or no public benefits whatsoever) routinely violate those principles and
threaten something even worse: broad government control of private property.
TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE
Recent land seizures
No one tracks how often local, state and federal agencies invoke the power of eminent
domain to take private property. The practice is not uncommon, though, and occurs in a
wide assortment of circumstances. Recent private-property seizures include:
* Little Rock for the Clinton Presidential Library
* High Point, N.C., for a proposed FedEx cargo hub
* Roanoke, Va., for a highway drainage pond
Source: USA TODAY research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
redevelopment project in New London., Conn., will not be used to build a health club,
as reported in a story Jan. 26 and an editorial March 21. That land is to be used for an
office building and parking lot. The health club will be built on a parcel within the project
that was not taken by eminent domain .
In New London, Conn., the local development agency wants to seize a handful of
homes to make room for a health club. In Mississippi, the state wants to take 28 acres
from an extended family to provide parking for a new Nissan truck factory. Across the
road, it wants another 325 acres for the factory's parts suppliers.
Normally, private developers would have to convince sometimes reluctant property
owners to sell and would have to pay them enough to make a deal. But in a half-dozen
recent instances in the Northeast alone, local and state leaders have tried to seize
private property and then turn it over to developers for private use. And while no one
tracks how frequently eminent domain is used on behalf of private developers, activists
such as the Institute for Justice, which fights land seizures, report an increasing
number of complaints.
The Constitution permits seizing private property for "public use" with "just
compensation." Traditionally, this has been used to acquire land for schools, parks
and roads.
Beginning in the 1950s, though, the courts started expanding the notion of public use to
include projects with indirect public benefits, such as urban redevelopment. The
number of agencies using the power has also grown. In some states, even cable TV
companies have the authority to exercise eminent domain .
Doing so doesn't take much, either. Officials need only declare that a piece of property
is blighted, which in some cities can be no more than a lack of adequate parking. In
Pittsburgh, property was declared blighted because the area had inadequate planning
and a lack of air and light.
Proponents argue that economic development is the functional equivalent of public
use, because jobs and taxes will flow forth from redeveloped property. They say
eminent domain has historically been used for such purposes -- including acquiring
land for 19th century railroad barons -- and that without it, owners of strategically placed
parcels would take taxpayers to the cleaners.
But there are key differences. When the government was opening up the West 150
years ago, the railroads served a primary public use -- in that case, transportation --
that tony health clubs in city centers do not.
It's not as if the new use is always appreciably superior, either. In 1998, the city of
Merriam, Kan., used eminent domain to seize land being occupied by a used-car lot. In
the end, the property went to a new-car dealer who had failed to negotiate his own sale
with the previous landowner.
Fortunately, courts, lawmakers and communities are starting to rein in the most
egregious land grabs. In 1998, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a state
development agency could not take an elderly woman's home and two businesses in
Atlantic City in order to provide additional parking for the Trump Hotel and Casino.
Pittsburgh has abandoned plans to seize 64 buildings to make room for a Chicago
developer.
Still, eminent domain is used too carelessly. Trying to throw an elderly woman out of
her home to build parking for a casino is an act of almost cartoonish dimensions. But it
makes a valuable point about the fundamentals of the power. It should be used
sparingly, for pronounced public use and benefit, informed by respect for private
property, regardless of who owns it or how it is used.
Land grabs that benefit private economic interests while generating only trickle-down
public benefits (or no public benefits whatsoever) routinely violate those principles and
threaten something even worse: broad government control of private property.
TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE
Recent land seizures
No one tracks how often local, state and federal agencies invoke the power of eminent
domain to take private property. The practice is not uncommon, though, and occurs in a
wide assortment of circumstances. Recent private-property seizures include:
* Little Rock for the Clinton Presidential Library
* High Point, N.C., for a proposed FedEx cargo hub
* Roanoke, Va., for a highway drainage pond
Source: USA TODAY research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |