City Hall readies its bulldozers after Kelo
Expect more of this around the nation:
Boston City Council President Michael Flaherty said yesterday that Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s efforts to spur development of Fan Pier do not go far enough, and he again called on the city to consider seizing the South Boston waterfront property using its eminent domain power.
Flaherty originally suggested taking the 21-acre property in January. He said yesterday that a recent US Supreme Court decision strengthening the eminent domain powers of local governments puts Boston Redevelopment Authority in a better legal position to seek the Fan Pier land.
…
Flaherty said threatening the Pritzkers with seizure would be another stick the city should use to force sale of the property.
”It’s unfortunate we’re letting a guy from Chicago control the destiny of our waterfront,” said Flaherty, who lives in South Boston.
Is there any doubt that city and town councils will use Kelo as a way to pump up their tax base? Or simply reward favored supporters?
Bluegrass Blog takes Ann Althouse’s “Kelo is balanced”-reasoning to task.
Coyote Blog sees the writing on the billboard
Some fresh anti-Kelo opinions in print media:
This sort of “economic development” is generally banned in Washington. Our 1889 constitution says, with a short list of exceptions: “Private property shall not be taken for private use.”
Your house cannot be condemned for a Costco, a Nordstrom or a Sheraton Hotel. Under the rules of Connecticut, it could.
The town of New London claimed that its seizure of property was necessary for economic development.
We disagree. In this state, we promote economic development without it.
Letter to the editor in the Illinois Leader:
Home ownership used to be part of the American dream and private property constitutionally protected but the Supreme Court has found something that appears nowhere in the Constitution - that government can take property from A and give it to B if B pays more taxes.
…
Eminent domain was designed to facilitate the building of roads, bridges, and the like. The Fifth Amendment was not written as a means of increasing government revenues at the expense of an individual’s property rights. The right of Americans to be secure in their homes and property is in serious jeopardy.
This time, it is the bulldozers, and not the British, that are coming.
Last week’s Supreme Court decision on eminent domain strikes us as opening the door to untold abuses of a process that should be a last resort.
The decision doesn’t dwell on ”just compensation,” for that idea is well-established in concept and practice. Instead, the majority offered a stunningly broad interpretation of what constitutes ”public use.” Simply put, the majority said public use is whatever the government decides it is, including transferring private property from one owner to another for ”economic development.” Florida already takes a liberal view of the law, but the new interpretation will likely embolden local governments in our state to go even further.
David Harsanyi in Denver Post:
After last week’s Supreme Court decision, “eminent domain” can now simply be referred to as “government-sanctioned property theft.”
“Property,” a pretty sharp guy named John Adams once said, “is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.”
From last week, the Ohio Enquirer:
For all practical purposes, there now are only 9¾, not 10, after Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain.
With a 5-4 decision that may resonate throughout Greater Cincinnati, the court essentially tossed out the final clause of the Fifth Amendment - the one that, courts have agreed, says government can’t take your home unless it’s for a “public use.”
From now on, because of Kelo vs. New London, your local government can move you and your neighbors against your will any time a private firm wants to build a shopping center, office tower or other project that might bring the city more bucks than your paltry property tax contribution.
Make no mistake. With local governments strapped for cash, such a project may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you - quite possibly your neighborhood. Just ask residents of Norwood, which seized an allegedly “blighted” neighborhood to turn it over to the private developer of Rookwood Exchange, an upscale retail-office-condo complex. Or residents of Newport’s Côte Brilliante area (see letter at right).
