Guest Opinion

The Recent Supreme Court Decision Protects Only Rich Land Owners

by Dawn Gibbons

Last month the United States Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize people's homes and businesses -- even those in economically vibrant areas -- for private economic development.

As a result, cities now have wide power to condemn residences to make way for projects such as shopping centers, malls and hotel complexes. Although cities have long held the power to condemn property that is blighted or that is needed for a public use project, such as a road, in this decision, the Court essentially determined that “public use” now includes “greater tax revenue.”

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is supposed to protect people from unreasonable search and seizure of their property. In this ruling, the Supreme Court has evidently decided that generating higher tax revenue is a reasonable rationale for local governments to use as a basis for seizing private property.

I could not disagree more strongly. The right to own private property in this country is a fundamental right under which this nation was created.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent stated that this ruling will be handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the wealthy and powerful. Justice O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. I agree with Justice O'Connor's view and absolutely agree with members of Congress who are working on legislation that will mitigate the impact of this ruling.

Senator Ensign is writing legislation that will bar federal funding and tax breaks on property acquired for economic development by local governments using the broadened eminent domain authority recently given by the Supreme Court.

I applaud Senator Ensign as a champion of property rights.

Also, in the United States House of Representatives Congressman James Sensenbrenner, along with Congressman Jim Gibbons as a sponsor, has introduced legislation that will attempt to accomplish the same thing. Hearings on that legislation will be held this summer.

In addition to federal legislation, states are free to pass laws that strengthen private property rights. Eight states already forbid the use of eminent domain to take property from one private party and give it to another for economic development except to eliminate blight. Nevada took a major step in that direction with this year’s passage of Assembly Bill 143. AB 143 added new requirements that local governments must satisfy before condemning private property for redevelopment. However, even this legislation does not prevent a taking of property that is not blighted from being included with property that is given over for redevelopment.

Although the case before the U.S. Supreme Court centered on a few homes in New London, Connecticut, the use of eminent domain to force a property owner to sell to another private party for a private development project is widespread. According to the Institute for Justice, there were more than 10,000 instances of governments condemning or threatening to condemn private property for transfer to another private party between 1998 and 2002.

•••

_____________________________________________________