Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a local government's decision to invoke eminent domain and condemn the property of 15 homeowners who have resisted the move. Because the city of New London, Connecticut is attempting to improve the greater public good though, the court ruled that the local government has the power to take the property as long as just compensation was provided to the owners.
The argument here is over the interpretation of public use and whether government should be able to invoke the power of eminent domain even if some sort of public benefit is foreseen. Beyond the basic moral question on the legitimacy of eminent domain, the players on each side of this argument make this case particularly interesting. Although the local government of New London plans to build office space, as well as a residential area and pedestrian river walk along the Thames, in the newly acquired land for the Phizer company (Viagra), The Wall Street Journal (notoriously pro-business) has come out against the ruling in today's paper. Some of the language in the lead editorial makes it seem like the NYT and Journal accidentally swapped opinions for the day. The Journal editorial specifically made use of a number of surprising quotes from dissenting opinions:
"The Court [now holds]...that a costly urban renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Phizer Corporation, is for 'public use.' (Thomas)"
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party...the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms (O'Connor)"
While the Journal shares it's aversion to the ruling with strange bedfellows including the NAACP and AARP, the NYT continues the irony and argues in favor of the ruling. The Times is dismissive of the few property owners who stand to lose from this decision, and instead focuses on the prospect for more jobs and a higher tax base.
This debate brings up two philosophical issues and it is obviously confounding writers (such as those at the Times and Journal) who typically craft daily polemics on issues more susceptible to arguments made in black and white terms. In this case, both papers have decided to turn this into a property rights lesson. The Times writes, "[The ruling] is also a setback to the 'property rights' movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations." The Journal, on the other hand, decries governmental meddling with private property.
The other philosophical issue in this case, and to me the far more important one, deals with how we should determine the legitimacy of development plans by local governments for city and community improvement. Eminent Domain is only one tool (and seldom used at that) out of a whole toolbox that government uses in efforts for city planning. It worries me that both newspapers suggested that government should always have the power of eminent domain when it comes to building roads. This case only barely touched on what the real debate here should be about. City governments have been trying for years to figure out the best plan of action for the health of their city's and overall future public good. Ultimately, the Court decided yesterday that New London's plan had good enough prospects for the public that small-scale property rights could be infringed upon.
In the 1960's, swaths of inner-city neighborhoods were leveled during an Urban Renewal movement that sought to improve and revitalize cities across America. The movement is largely considered a failure as giant highways sliced through old neighborhoods and turned surrounding areas into crime and poverty-ridden ghettos. Today, mixed-use (such as in New London) and transit-oriented developments have become a popular alternative for cities struggling with suburban flight and business decentralization.
As both papers highlighted, property rights are commonly seen as expendable when certain plans involving public use are put forth (roads and highways). But why do giant roads (in my view often more damaging to city health than anything) reserve this priority? The Court's ruling yesterday will allow cities to be more imaginative with developments and improvements for their cities. True, as the Journal warns, this could have the same devastating effect as Urban Renewal, but city's need to do something to improve their plight in America. As city's such as Atlanta, Houston, and L.A. are coming to realize, more and more roads and highways tend to make cars happy...not people.
Comments