Build On This!

by John Slagter.

On Thursday, June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo v. City of New London. In a 5-4 decision, the majority of the Court (consisting of Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer) held that local governments may seize an individual’s home or business for private economic development. The Kelo case has been hailed as one of the most important eminent domain cases to reach the Supreme Court.

Increasingly, municipalities are using the power of eminent domain to acquire property for redevelopment projects with private developers. Although the taking of private property is authorized under the United States Constitution, governmental entities may only do so if it is for a “public use.” As cities become active participants in economic revitalization efforts, the nature of the debate between private rights and public needs is evolving, along with the definition of “public use.”

The central issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo was whether a city's condemnation of non-blighted, private property for the purpose of developing private residential and office space is a valid "public use." Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, noted that the Court has defined the concept of “public purpose” broadly, reflecting a “longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.”

The majority specifically rejected the idea of employing a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use. Rather, the Court noted that promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. Moreover, the Court noted that there is no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that the Court has recognized in the past.

However, municipalities exercising the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes should still be cautious. First, the Court approved the City of New London’s actions on the basis that it was supported by a carefully considered, comprehensive development plan that was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals. Second, the Court noted that nothing in the decision was meant to preclude a State from placing more stringent controls on the exercise of eminent domain. Whether States will enact such controls remains to be seen.

by John Slagter.

One week after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New Haven, two Gahanna City Councilmen, Nick Hogan and John McAlister, proposed amendments to the Gahanna City Charter that would ban the exercise of eminent domain powers for the Gahanna City Charter. The US Supreme Court ruled last week that city governments were permitted to take away anyone’s private property if they expected to receive higher property taxes from someone else.

“In light of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 vote to attack private property rights, I believe it is absolutely necessary for Gahanna to stand up to be heard and counted,” declared Gahanna Councilman Nick Hogan. “We need to pass a law and better yet a Charter change to forbid anyone, including government, from taking one’s home for private development."

The Libertarian Party of Ohio has taken the lead on eminent domain abuse. “Not only do homeowners often receive free legal help,” mentions Ohio Director Robert Butler, “there's a complete package of eminent domain protest materials from yard signs to political strategies from The Castle Coalition”

“It’s a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that’s a good enough reason for eminent domain,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney who works with the libertarian, pro bono Institute for Justice and defended the residents of New London, Connecticut.

"All politics is local," notes Libertarian City Councilman John McAlister. "I agree with Nick that as a city council we should do everything possible to stand up to tyranny and look out for the rights of our constituents. We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not Supreme Court decisions that try to take away rights rather than protect rights.”

“This is a litmus test,” challenges Libertarian State Chair Jason Hallmark. “If Republicans and Democrats won’t defend a person’s home, what good are they?”