Thursday, June 23, 2005
Kelo v. New London
by Tom Bozzo
The use of eminent domain to foster private development may be constitutional (and I'll have to bug Oscar, the con law guy, about the legal issues sometime after he's back from Europe), but that doesn't make it advisable. I would urge municipalities to resist the impulse to use their powers for such purposes.
------------------------------
It should be noted that the most conspicuous eminent domain case in Madison in recent memory, involving the demolition of the homes of the old Dotty Dumpling's Dowry among other Fairchild St. businesses to make way for the Overture Center's concert hall, would appear to be an old-fashioned public purpose. I nevertheless think the city and possibly the donor screwed up royal by failing to make the concert hall an anchor of the East Washington Avenue approach to downtown, where currently municipal parking lots and post-industrial blight dominate the cityscape.
I am glad that I mentioned earlier that I can sometimes agree with conservatives (or didn't disclaim my ability to do so), as I find myself agreeing on something with a Supreme Court minority comprising O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist this lunchtime.
The use of eminent domain to foster private development may be constitutional (and I'll have to bug Oscar, the con law guy, about the legal issues sometime after he's back from Europe), but that doesn't make it advisable. I would urge municipalities to resist the impulse to use their powers for such purposes.
------------------------------
It should be noted that the most conspicuous eminent domain case in Madison in recent memory, involving the demolition of the homes of the old Dotty Dumpling's Dowry among other Fairchild St. businesses to make way for the Overture Center's concert hall, would appear to be an old-fashioned public purpose. I nevertheless think the city and possibly the donor screwed up royal by failing to make the concert hall an anchor of the East Washington Avenue approach to downtown, where currently municipal parking lots and post-industrial blight dominate the cityscape.
Comments:
<< Home
No doubt we both see abuse. This ruling gives cities the power to take over private properties to build malls, Wal-Marts, or any private development that can make the city more tax money and/or bring jobs. I'm pretty shocked by it.
In Madison, I'm less concerned about the city taking land to allow Wal-Mart to build (because that will never happen), but I imagine a lot of businesses and homes (especially those that see their area shaded in the master plan) could be in trouble. They could build apartments where a house(s) was and that would apparently meet the new definition of public use.
In other areas of the country, this also gives the power to cities to kick poor or even moderately wealthy people out of their homes to build something else. In places where they like Wal-Mart (and they do in NE where I'm originally from), big corporations could potentially use favor with local politicians to push the little guy out. This gives more power to corporations, and less power to the little guy.
I'd say this is a bad ruling for anyone who doesn't have the favor of local politicians and it will lead to more corruption by local politicians/developers.
Good possibly for cities and corporations, bad for people.
In Madison, I'm less concerned about the city taking land to allow Wal-Mart to build (because that will never happen), but I imagine a lot of businesses and homes (especially those that see their area shaded in the master plan) could be in trouble. They could build apartments where a house(s) was and that would apparently meet the new definition of public use.
In other areas of the country, this also gives the power to cities to kick poor or even moderately wealthy people out of their homes to build something else. In places where they like Wal-Mart (and they do in NE where I'm originally from), big corporations could potentially use favor with local politicians to push the little guy out. This gives more power to corporations, and less power to the little guy.
I'd say this is a bad ruling for anyone who doesn't have the favor of local politicians and it will lead to more corruption by local politicians/developers.
Good possibly for cities and corporations, bad for people.
# posted by 
: Thu Jun 23, 02:00:00 PM
: Thu Jun 23, 02:00:00 PM
Yes, I too found myself agreeing with Scalia and the other dissenters on this. I haven't read the rulings yet, but my goodness, the potential for abuse!
Post a Comment
<< Home
