« Local Art Exhibit | Main | Grand Old Flag »

June 24, 2005

Not So Public

I've just gotten a chance to read Kelo v. New London. You should read it if you haven't. A finer example of justices 'finding' precedent to support their personal social policies you'll not find. I'm sure there's much better analysis out there than anything I could come up with, but I have to just add to the general chorus denouncing the decision. This is not 'public use'.

Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park

Neither is this.

Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space.

And no amount of mixing a marina & public walkways or a museum in with the overall plan makes it so, especially in an area which all agree did not suffer from urban blight.

And the Court is wrong to extend the government's eminent domain power to include these types of governmental takings.

But let's look at the big picture. It is unlikely that the Court would've been able to rule this way if the state of Connecticut hadn't given them the opening.

According to the Associated Press, Connecticut is one of several states that either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

Luckily, I live in one of the 8 states which expressly forbids this type of governmental redistribution of property except to combat urban blight. And even that is a bit of a stretch to fit within the 'public use' required by the Constitution for a government's use of its eminent domain power, IMHO.

The fallout from this controversial opinion will be interesting. I suspect, judging from the widespread condemnation of this opinion that I'm seeing, that there will be lots of legislation introduced around the nation to better define a government's eminent domain power. And I also suspect that it may've just gotten much easier to get less liberal judges confirmed to the bench. Unintended consequences to be sure, and not necessarily bad ones at that.

Sometimes there's value in allowing someone enough rope to hang themselves. And the liberal wing of the Court may've done just that this time.

Posted by Rita at June 24, 2005 04:55 AM

Comments

I'm trying to track down the list of the States that protect against this kind of theft. Do you know where I can find it?

I've also seen the number at 9 (Utah passed a statute rather recently).

Posted by: Zach Wendling at June 24, 2005 08:33 AM

There's a list in the Washington Times article I linked to.

Posted by: Rita [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2005 08:44 AM