Eminent domain
Eminent domain
Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 29 2005
ISSUE: The Supreme Court has made it easier for governments to take private property.
Every property owner should be concerned about a Supreme Court decision last week that supports a growing tendency among governments to expand the use of their eminent domain power. The court, in effect, ruled a government entity can take a person's property and transfer it to a private, profit-making corporation if it serves a public purpose, such as generating additional tax revenue.
In other words, if a city decided it wanted multimillion-dollar business and condominium development on the beach instead of middle-class housing, it could be within its rights to take property through eminent domain and turn it over to a private corporation for redevelopment.
Cities certainly have an interest in improving blighted areas through redevelopment, and a few intransigent property owners can block ambitious plans needed to upgrade a community. The high court's 5-4 ruling, however, could pave the way for a massive transfer of property from the middle and lower economic classes to the wealthy.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent: "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
In a quainter, and perhaps less greedy, time in American history, "public use" had a much narrower definition. Government could take a person's property, with just compensation, to make way for a road, a school or a municipal water project.
But a shopping mall?
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined O'Connor in opposition to the decision.
Fortunately, the ruling does not preclude states from protecting property rights. The Florida Legislature should review the state's eminent domain law and procedures, and strengthen them if necessary, to make certain the average citizen's property is protected from unethical seizures.
BOTTOM LINE: In light of the court ruling, the Legislature should look again at eminent domain.
Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 29 2005
ISSUE: The Supreme Court has made it easier for governments to take private property.
Every property owner should be concerned about a Supreme Court decision last week that supports a growing tendency among governments to expand the use of their eminent domain power. The court, in effect, ruled a government entity can take a person's property and transfer it to a private, profit-making corporation if it serves a public purpose, such as generating additional tax revenue.
In other words, if a city decided it wanted multimillion-dollar business and condominium development on the beach instead of middle-class housing, it could be within its rights to take property through eminent domain and turn it over to a private corporation for redevelopment.
Cities certainly have an interest in improving blighted areas through redevelopment, and a few intransigent property owners can block ambitious plans needed to upgrade a community. The high court's 5-4 ruling, however, could pave the way for a massive transfer of property from the middle and lower economic classes to the wealthy.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent: "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
In a quainter, and perhaps less greedy, time in American history, "public use" had a much narrower definition. Government could take a person's property, with just compensation, to make way for a road, a school or a municipal water project.
But a shopping mall?
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined O'Connor in opposition to the decision.
Fortunately, the ruling does not preclude states from protecting property rights. The Florida Legislature should review the state's eminent domain law and procedures, and strengthen them if necessary, to make certain the average citizen's property is protected from unethical seizures.
BOTTOM LINE: In light of the court ruling, the Legislature should look again at eminent domain.
posted by Editor Facts & Myths at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home