The Politics of Land Grabbing
Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss
DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman
Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon
Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton
Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman
Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive
Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert
Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler
Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson
Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura
Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley
Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders
Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten
World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges
The Supreme Court's June 23 decision to allow the city of New London, Conn. to condemn its citizens' homes simply to generate more municipal tax revenue offended the vast majority of Americans, myself included. In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor declared, "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
That's the bad news.
The good news is that the Court's decision does not prevent states and localities from adopting a different approach. "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."
The eminent domain debate now returns to the local and state level, where it ultimately belongs. All states have statutes or constitutional provisions governing the conditions under which governments can take private property. Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky and California significantly limit that authority. A 1976 California court opinion describes their approach. Eminent domain "never can be used just because the (city) considers that it can make better use or planning of an area than its present use or plan. ... (I)t is not sufficient to merely show that the area is not being put to its optimum use, or that the land is more valuable for other uses" to justify condemnation of property.
The laws of Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota and Connecticut, conversely, grant local and state governments much broader leeway.
The debate about eminent domain centers on two questions. When can government take private property? What should it pay for that property?
The Supreme Court decision focused on the first issue, the definition of "public use" under the 5th Amendment. At the state and local level, we might more profitably initiate the conversation by focusing on the second, the definition of "just compensation."
Under current laws, "just compensation" means current market value. If government condemns two identical houses in the same neighborhood it pays the owners an identical amount. This is true, even if, as was the case in New London, one family had lived in its home for several generations while another was renting on a short-term lease.
Common sense, however, tells us that the value of a place to the occupant is related to the amount of time he or she lives in it. And the value of the tenant, whether a person or a business, to the neighborhood also increases with the length of occupancy. Intangibles are involved here, costs and benefits difficult to quantify but indisputably real.
The central question before us, then, is how do we value community? Here is my suggestion:
Corporate influence...may prevent local officials from performing the rational calculus needed to decide whether a taking's displacement costs--including the loss of valuable affordable housing stock, small business matrices and viable communities--are outweighed by unenforceable promises, or no promises at all, of job creation, income, sales, and property tax revenue, and speculative spin-off spending.The third option is to absolutely prohibit the taking of private property for economic development. Washington's Constitution does so. In early 2005, Utah stripped its redevelopment agencies of the power of eminent domain.
When the local government showers a big development with money and favors, it's usually not about sovereignty but about lack of sovereignty. Private developers play jurisdictions off against one another, extracting concessions from all that none would actually make a sovereign decision to give.The Supreme Court decision disappointed many. But the debate is far from over; it has shifted to the local and state level -- which is where, ultimately, it should be decided.
David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.