News Story on the Ruling
The Supreme Court is on crack. That is the only explanation I have for what they have just ruled. If you're too lazy to read the article, allow me to summarize. Eminent domain is the constitutional right of the government to seize your property for public works. They have always had this right, so that if Farmer Bob doesn't feel like moving so that the new hospital can be built, he can be paid off and evicted legally. Although a bit unsettling, this little legal ability is really quite necessary to maintain government order, and I've never really had a problem with it. However, now the Supreme Court has ruled that economic development projects fall under this public use category of eminent domain.
In case you missed it in the article, local governments have this power. Now I don't know how it works in your county, but in my county the local government shows some signs of being less than honest. I can see Wal-Mart having a large influence over the commissioners' decision to let them build that new Supercenter on Farmer Bob's land, even though he doesn't want to sell.
There have been some repercussions to this decision already. This developer is trying to use the new ruling to seize Justice Souter's land , and states are fighting back as well.
This decision is a strong blow against private property in the United States. Speaking in financial terms, the risk of owning property, especially on what would otherwise be prime retail development land, has increased greatly. Corporations which are able to sway the opinions of local government officials could have nearly free reign on where to build, regardless of who owns the land.
One interesting outcome of this ruling would be if a corporation tried to seize another corporation's land. Imagine this scenario: Think of a the poorer side of a city, where an aging Wal-mart shopping center is filled with vacancies, but Wal-mart sees no reason to get rid of this shopping center because its mortgage is paid off and the rent is still somewhat profitable. Now imagine Target takes a look at that shopping center and manages to convince the local city council that they would make a better tenant (economically for the city) than Wal-mart has. Boom! Target seizes Wal-mart's land under the new eminent domain ruling! We could have a whole rush of firms competing for others' lands! That would be mildly amusing.
Still, the entire concept of a private business (or a public one) being able to take away someone's private land is disturbing. If that doesn't unsettle you a little, please comment and explain to me why, exactly. Until then, I'll be trying to convince a private LAN Gaming corporation to take over my neighbor's land.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Eminent Domain
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If the Supreme Court is on crack, then we should crack their case like a box of Cracker Jacks and throw them in with the popcorn and caramel. Except for Justice O'Connor; she's leaving. Wha--hey! Land developers just seized my Cracker Jack box! So much for that.
Ok, so I'm not that scared that the government and land developers are going to take all private property, but I still am a little unnerved by the Supreme Court's decision. I agree that eminent domain is a necessary and useful power of the government, but I also think it should be used wisely. Economic developments as public use are a bit iffy in my book. It sounds more like a chance for developers to strike deals with local governments to increase profits for both parties.
However, this does not mean that the effects of the Court's decision will find every town exploited. In Tiffin, eminent domain is rarely an issue. Farmers fight tooth and nail to keep developers off their land, and our city government doesn't approve new building projects often. We even had a ruckus over whose homes had to be taken for our badly-needed new middle school a few years ago. Building a school is an excellent use of eminent domain, but the people in the building zone felt like they had nowhere to go (in a town where hardly any new homes are built, either).
However, in places like Findlay (just 25 miles away), development is almost rampant. I don't know if any homes or land were actually seized to make room for the stampede of businesses, but I do remember there being houses and fields where there are now car dealers, Olive Gardens, and Menards'.
I doubt that the Supreme Court's ruling will have a big effect on towns like mine, where agriculture still has a strong influence on all the components of the county, but I can see where it could leave the door open for land-grabbing businesses in places like Findlay. Does this mean an imminent land-snatching scrabble in fast-developing cities? Maybe. In places where there is little land useful as prime development, there's now more potential for a property-seizing escalation war.
I'm sure that when I become a homeowner, I'll be more aware of the consequences of eminent domain. I'm already thinking about how I would choose a property carefully, in a spot not likely to become a "Target." It's something we'll all have to think about more carefully. In the meantime, give me back my Craker Jacks!
~greenleaf~
Post a Comment