Vic Coelho's
We link you to the source
SM
If you found this web site helpful — please tell your friends, family and colleagues about it.
Our linking to the above sites does not constitute an endorsement of any products, services or the information found on them. Once you link to another site you
are subject to the policies of the new Website. Copyright © 2007 Labor Market Snippets. All rights reserved.
Our linking to the above sites does not constitute an endorsement of any products, services or the information found on them. Once you link to another site you
are subject to the policies of the new Website. Copyright © 2007 Labor Market Snippets. All rights reserved.
Eminent Domain: Seizing Homes and Businesses for Private Economic Development
The June, 2005, Supreme Court decision: In KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al., the Supreme Court ruled
local governments may seize your home or business for private economic development. “Public use” changed to
“public purpose”: The court changed the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property be taken only for
“public use” to include “public purpose.”
The power of local governments to condemn property to generate tax revenue was broadened with this ruling.
Governments no longer need to show land is blighted before the property is condemned. “Public use” meant
government could seize private land to build a road, railway, utility line, or other public project for the use of the
public. Everyone had a right to the greater good produced from government’s exercise of eminent domain.
With “public purpose,” the Supreme Court broadened “public use” to include planned development with local
The June, 2005, Supreme Court decision: In KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al., the Supreme Court ruled
local governments may seize your home or business for private economic development. “Public use” changed to
“public purpose”: The court changed the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property be taken only for
“public use” to include “public purpose.”
The power of local governments to condemn property to generate tax revenue was broadened with this ruling.
Governments no longer need to show land is blighted before the property is condemned. “Public use” meant
government could seize private land to build a road, railway, utility line, or other public project for the use of the
public. Everyone had a right to the greater good produced from government’s exercise of eminent domain.
With “public purpose,” the Supreme Court broadened “public use” to include planned development with local
government’s purpose of increasing private sector jobs, improving infrastructure, and
ultimately obtaining higher tax revenues. However, with this change, private property
can now be seized to increase the community’s tax revenues by transferring the
property to a private owner whom the local government deems will provide more
revenue to the community.
The resulting project need not necessarily be open for public use.
Arguments for eminent domain:
1. If the local government has a well developed economic plan to serve a public
purpose, such as creating economic growth, eminent domain may be necessary to
create jobs and generate revenue. Even if the public benefits indirectly from urban
ultimately obtaining higher tax revenues. However, with this change, private property
can now be seized to increase the community’s tax revenues by transferring the
property to a private owner whom the local government deems will provide more
revenue to the community.
The resulting project need not necessarily be open for public use.
Arguments for eminent domain:
1. If the local government has a well developed economic plan to serve a public
purpose, such as creating economic growth, eminent domain may be necessary to
create jobs and generate revenue. Even if the public benefits indirectly from urban
renewal private projects, such projects meet the public use requirement.
2. “Public use” projects outweigh the property rights of the homeowners. Ideally, the local economy is thus revitalized,
essential resources provided, and the community benefits.
3. The Supreme Court presumes local officials know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit a
community and defers to local governments in deciding what constitutes “public use.”
4. Eminent domain is a tool allowing local governments to revitalize areas that otherwise would not get revitalized.
Arguments against eminent domain:
1. Having a local government ‘economic plan” does not guarantee the property owner facing eminent domain
proceedings, protection from financial loss. Going through a planning process and having public hearings does not
constitute “protection” for property owners living in the real world.
2. Those that do not have the financial resources will be unable to challenge the definition of “fair market value”
imposed upon them. The costs of defending an eminent domain action can rapidly escalate beyond the value of the
property.
3. Cities now have authority to take homes and business to benefit developers with deep pockets or large corporations
with disproportionate political connections and influence.
What’s happening now?
Legislation to control eminent domain was introduced in states, cities and towns across the country. The Alabama and
Texas legislatures passed legislation in 2005 limiting eminent domain and their governors quickly signed them into law.
The Private Property Protection Act of 2005 stalled in Congress. Last year, the House voted 376-38 to approve this
bill prohibiting State and local communities from receiving federal economic development funds when using eminent
domain to build private business. However, on November 4, 2005, the Senate referred the bill to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary and there it remains.
Next week, voters in 12 states (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina) will vote on measures to restrict the government from taking
property for private uses. Last September, Louisiana approved a similar measure.
Sources:
Legal Information Institute, Supreme Court Collection
Findlaw
Property Seizures and the New London Tea Party
Eminent domain: A big-box bo-nanza?
CNN Money: Eminent domain looks less imminent
Eminent Domain Watch
2. “Public use” projects outweigh the property rights of the homeowners. Ideally, the local economy is thus revitalized,
essential resources provided, and the community benefits.
3. The Supreme Court presumes local officials know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit a
community and defers to local governments in deciding what constitutes “public use.”
4. Eminent domain is a tool allowing local governments to revitalize areas that otherwise would not get revitalized.
Arguments against eminent domain:
1. Having a local government ‘economic plan” does not guarantee the property owner facing eminent domain
proceedings, protection from financial loss. Going through a planning process and having public hearings does not
constitute “protection” for property owners living in the real world.
2. Those that do not have the financial resources will be unable to challenge the definition of “fair market value”
imposed upon them. The costs of defending an eminent domain action can rapidly escalate beyond the value of the
property.
3. Cities now have authority to take homes and business to benefit developers with deep pockets or large corporations
with disproportionate political connections and influence.
What’s happening now?
Legislation to control eminent domain was introduced in states, cities and towns across the country. The Alabama and
Texas legislatures passed legislation in 2005 limiting eminent domain and their governors quickly signed them into law.
The Private Property Protection Act of 2005 stalled in Congress. Last year, the House voted 376-38 to approve this
bill prohibiting State and local communities from receiving federal economic development funds when using eminent
domain to build private business. However, on November 4, 2005, the Senate referred the bill to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary and there it remains.
Next week, voters in 12 states (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina) will vote on measures to restrict the government from taking
property for private uses. Last September, Louisiana approved a similar measure.
Sources:
Legal Information Institute, Supreme Court Collection
Findlaw
Property Seizures and the New London Tea Party
Eminent domain: A big-box bo-nanza?
CNN Money: Eminent domain looks less imminent
Eminent Domain Watch
