Lying As Your First Resort

This is how New London and her allies present their side of the present question of eminent domain before the Supreme Court: Consider The Greater Good

Using eminent domain for the benefit of the community as a whole is never easy. Eliminating this important tool would hurt, not help, both citizens and their communities. The tool should compensate citizens justly with fair market value. And substituting judicial review for local decision-making is a bad idea.

This is all false. No one is advocating "eliminating" eminent domain. The question here is if the state can take property from one private citizen and give that property to another (wealthier) private citizen. This is a demonstrably different action than taking property for public use. Having the courts address this issue is perfectly reasonable. The notion that the legal system has not been deeply involved in eminent domain cases up until now is farcical.


The issue being argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a city can condemn private property and transfer it to another private owner for economic development purposes.

This is not eminent domain. The fifth amendment declares "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It beggars the imagination to see how giving someone's home to another for the purpose of developing their for-profit business can be construed as "public use." The fact that tax revenues will be produced as a result of this business is incidental to the taking in question. So call it what you will (I prefer the word "theft") it is not eminent domain.

Using condemnation only when a government entity will own the property - for example, for a highway or jail or to remove blight - unduly restricts a community's ability to manage growth and change. (ed. -For example, removing poorer folks or people on fixed incomes from their homes to put in a new strip mall or a Jiffy Lube.) Some of the nation's most successful community developments, such as the Pearl District in Portland, Ore., came about because a local government worked with private interests to assemble (ed. -or steal) many individually owned properties to build something that benefits the entire community. (ed. -As measured by increased tax revenues and the parties that city officials now get invited to attend. "Hey we threw 20 families from their ancestral homes, but now the city can provide the mayor with a free Audi and I've had caviar at the industrial developers soirees twice!")

Communities are not frozen in time. They are always changing - whether thriving or stagnating. Owning a piece of property does not guarantee it will be immune to change.

"Yeah you damn old people. Besides, I want a Barnes & Noble in the neighborhood." See they are not stealing your home, the property is "changing."

Our communities should not be hamstrung by having to wait for the courts to decide whether economic development objectives are "public" enough to satisfy the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Funny thing is, I happen to like the Constitution setting the groundrules for our rights and privileges as American citizens. I'm sorry if our Constitutional protections get in the way of the new Wal-Mart or Home Depot.

God, I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing here.