Eminent domain is an economic development tool that allows communities to acquire and assemble land for new development projects that generate new jobs, investment and taxes. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. New London leaves eminent domain in the hands of states, and affirms eminent domain as a tool for local governments in the redevelopment and revitalization of economically distressed areas.
Bill King criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that supplanting the will of one individual for the greater good of the community “flies in the face of everything we stand for as a people.” (“When it Comes to Eminent Domain, Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should,” July 2005).
I disagree.
If the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes is prohibited, communities will suffer. One person could veto the revitalization of a distressed area. This would have the practical effect of making some economic development projects virtually impossible. If governments have to wait for holdouts, communities will see jobs and market opportunities disappear.
| The Supreme Court’s decision keeps the economic health of communities in the hands of local leaders who are not out to destroy communities, but rather who work for the best interests of their constituents. |
There is no question that eminent domain is a power that, like any government power, must be used prudently, and there are many built-in checks. One such check is the public nature of the takings process. Probing questions should be raised about any complex undertaking financed by taxpayers, and nothing in local government attracts more scrutiny or more criticism than eminent domain.
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court refers favorably to New London’s long engagement in an open planning process.
For every Suzette Kelo, there are many John Smiths and Mary Johnsons who are invited to participate in a comprehensive planning process. Your readers can imagine themselves engaged in a public process, relocating with compensation and supporting the community’s growth.
The Supreme Court’s decision keeps the economic health of communities in the hands of local leaders who are not out to destroy communities, but rather who work for the best interests of their constituents.
Authorities that abuse this privilege risk creating volatile political situations. Few government officials are willing to risk their position and political stability in pursuit of a project overwhelmingly opposed by the community, and those who do are ultimately accountable to the voters.
Mr. King also criticizes the Kelo decision for authorizing “taking someone’s home … and giving it to a private developer [in order to build upscale retail and condominium projects] ….”
While it is true that once a public entity acquires title to a property, it can be conveyed to a developer to carry out a project, there is good reason for this. Economic developers wait until there is a market opportunity before using eminent domain.
As a matter of policy, cities should not be in the long-discredited practice of building redevelopment projects. Rather, they should facilitate the use of private capital and private management to achieve the same end.
We should be expanding our efforts to solve the problems of economic deterioration, not imposing restrictions on community growth. This is especially true at a time when so many of our businesses and communities are being confronted with intense competition from the global economy, and areas of our cities and rural areas are in decline.
The judicious use of eminent domain helps to revitalize local economies, create much-needed jobs and generate revenues that enable cities to provide essential services. When used prudently, and in the sunshine of public scrutiny, eminent domain helps achieve a greater public good that benefits the entire community.
Means the article is accessible only to our magazine subscribers.
