Can the government confiscate your home for profit?

October 01, 2004|By Steve Chapman

CHICAGO - What would you call it if someone forced you to sell your home, even though you didn't want to sell and didn't agree to the price? You'd call it theft, and you'd phone 911. But the realm of government is cloaked in terminology designed to hide unpleasant realities. When the government does this, it's called "eminent domain," and it's legal.

Wilhelmina Dery has lived her entire life in the house where she was born in 1918, in a modest section of New London, Conn. But if she hopes to depart this world from the same place that she entered it, she will need help from the U.S. Supreme Court. This week, it agreed to decide whether Ms. Dery and others can be deprived of their homes merely because the city thinks the property could be put to a more lucrative use.

Municipal authorities want to demolish her house, and others, to make room for a commercial development next to the new Pfizer Corp. research headquarters. Most houses in the neighborhood have already been razed, but a few residents have dared to insist on staying, despite the inconvenience they are causing city planners.

The supporters of the development are not moved by the notion that homeowners should be allowed to stand in the way of economic progress. The former head of the New London Development Corp., the private company overseeing the project, offered this reflective defense of the planned confiscation: "Anything that's working in our great nation is working because somebody left skin on the sidewalk."

The U.S. Constitution authorizes eminent domain, as a regrettable necessity. In one sense, the city is making use of a time-honored instrument of government. What it may have overlooked is that the Fifth Amendment not only grants power but restricts it.

The amendment says, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." There are two specific conditions: The owner has to be fully compensated and the property has to be needed for public use. When the government decides to build a road, create a national forest or erect an Army base where you happen to live, it can condemn your home as long as it's willing to pay a fair price for it.

In this case, though, there is no "public use." The city is simply confiscating private property from one set of owners so it can give it to another set. The rationale is that the seizure is needed to "reverse decades of economic decline, create thousands of jobs and significantly increase property taxes and other sources of revenue for the city." Unlike a road or a military base, the anticipated economic and revenue growth are not a certainty but a speculative hope.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, took what it called a "flexible approach" to the concept of public use.

But if this sort of redevelopment can pass through the eye of the needle, make way for a herd of camels. "Using eminent domain for `economic development' alone is a new phenomenon," says the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm representing Ms. Dery and other aggrieved homeowners. "Usually governments try to at least claim that the area is a `slum' or `blighted,' but Connecticut has dispensed with that pretense and admits outright that if another business could make a profit on your land, the government can take it."

Under this reading, the public use restriction amounts to no restriction at all.

Politically powerful developers throughout the country would be free to use their connections to acquire parcels of land for their own profit - even if the owners refused to sell. And some municipal governments would happily indulge them, while claiming to serve the needs of the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court should recognize that the public use requirement is a sturdy barrier preventing government power from bursting its bounds. Allowing Connecticut's "flexible approach" would be the equivalent of replacing the Hoover Dam with a picket fence.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. His column appears Tuesdays and Fridays in The Sun.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.