Unless you have spent the last month living in a cave on a remote tropical island, you have surely heard about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo v. New London, which upheld the right of local governments to use their powers of eminent domain to take property from one private citizen — with compensation — and give it to another private citizen, all under the guise of economic development.
Economic development organizations throughout the country, particularly those that represent our nation’s urban city centers, were generally pleased with the outcome of this case, which says that economic development can be considered a “public use” for the purposes of eminent domain.
For most of them, it is a way for the city to take “non-productive” property and convert it to a use that will generate more tax dollars. As such, it is an important weapon in the urban redevelopment arsenal. Or is it?
My view is that this is a classic case of winning the battle, but losing the war.
| This case is not simply an abstract issue of politics. It’s personal, and it doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination for people to see themselves in Susette Kelo’s place. That’s what makes it such an empty victory for economic development organizations. |
What do I mean by that? Simply this: economic development organizations rely upon the public’s good will for their very existence. I don’t just mean for financial support, either.
ED organizations exist because the local community believes that its efforts will help make the city or town a better place to live. Where that consensus is strong, so is the vitality of a community’s economic development program. In places where that consensus is weak or nonexistent, ED programs tend to wither and die.
More so than almost any of the Court’s many controversial decisions over the past several years, this one has triggered a firestorm of public anger that transcends party lines, and that bodes ill for any economic developer who tries to do anything even remotely similar to what the Supreme Court has said is permissible.
Let’s be frank. These days, it’s hard to find any public official who will stand up and say that it was okay for the city of New London, Conn., to take away Susette Kelo’s home over her objections and give it to a private developer, just so the city can reap more tax revenue.
That’s because it’s one thing to support the ultimate goal of reinvigorating the health and vitality of a city’s urban core. However, taking away someone’s home, over their strong objections, and literally giving it (I believe the deal called for a $1 a year lease for 99 years) to a private developer — in order to build upscale retail and condominium projects — is another thing altogether.
After all, a person’s home is more than just a place to live. For most people, it is their main source of wealth. It is where they raise their family, and where they create the memories that will sustain them into their golden years. For many, whose home has been in family hands for several generations, it is a link to their heritage.
In other words, it’s not just a piece of property. Next to their family, it is the most important thing in their lives. To have a local government be able to take that away and give it to another person, simply because that person may be able to generate more tax revenue into the city’s coffers, flies in the face of everything we stand for as a people.
That’s why so many people across the political spectrum are so livid. This case is not simply an abstract issue of politics. It’s personal, and it doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination for people to see themselves in Susette Kelo’s place.
That’s what makes it such an empty victory for economic development organizations.
Sure, their authority to use their powers of eminent domain has been upheld by our nation’s highest court. But watch out for local support for economic development efforts to quickly evaporate if the people ever begin to feel that their home might be the next target in the local government’s crosshairs.
Means the article is accessible only to our magazine subscribers.
