A stunning new Supreme Court ruling may amount to legal land robbery.
The court ruled in a tight 5-to-4 vote that local governments can
seize private land for use by private investors if they think it's in
the best interest of the community. This expansion of the power of
"eminent domain" is a big win for economic development, but not so
much for private landowner rights.
The case comes from the small coastal town of New London, Conn.
Officials there condemned fifteen homes of longtime residents so that
an office complex, hotel and condominiums could be put in their place.
The homeowners had refused to sell.
The Constitution has always allowed the government to seize private
property for public uses� �� ��such as schools, highways or railroads. This
ruling extends that power into an area that is much more
subjective� �� ��private use of seized property for what is deemed the
"overall good" of a community. That "good" can be as simple as
increasing the tax base.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor used strong personal rights language in
her dissenting opinion, writing that cities should not have unlimited
authority to uproot families� �� ��even if they are provided
compensation� �� ��simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
Big-box stores such as Wal-Mart and Target have been criticized for
their use of eminent domain laws to acquire land. Worries that the
ruling will offer new opportunities for this sort of expansion are
being downplayed by retail consulting groups who insist retailers
don't want to aggressively go into areas where they aren't wanted.