Expansion Of Eminent Domain Is Robbery

Back in September of 2004 I wrote an article on the expansion of eminent domain. At the time, I suggested keeping an eye on moves by local government to declare eminent domain on private property and turn that land over to private developers and corporations. Well, the Supreme Court ruled that it is Constitutional for local government to do just that. This is a devastating blow in the balance of power between the public, the government, and big money.

Depending on how you look at this ruling, it either broadens the powers of governments to seize property, or dramatically narrows the protections of people from seizure of their land.

The case heard by the Supreme Court involved the City of New London, Conneticutt's seizure of private property and the selling of that property to a developer for "economic development" purposes. The neighborhood targeted in New London is characterized as "faded residential neighborhood." The property was claimed under eminent domain by the development commission in New London to create a commercial district.

The law of eminent domain is in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and allows government bodies to deprive people of their land in the public good or public use. The law has been used for a lot of questionable purposes, but the current ruling transforms both what is considered "for the public good," and the rights of landowners to fight back.

There are several questionable aspects to the ruling, and the practice. First is that economic development falls within the intentions of eminent domain. Second is the purchasing of the land at tax payer expense to be given as (essentially) a gift to developers. Third is that this was a decision by a commission, and not even by elected representatives.

It implications of this ruling are vast. As I noted in my article in September 2004:

Such a ruling would allow governments to take private property from "small fish" (private homeowners) and give that property at tax payer expense to "big fish" (private developers). I am relatively confident that the homes of the well-to-do will not be at risk, but the homes of the less well off could well be on the block. I can foresee such a move as cities around the country go through gentrification. Relatively affordable homes and housing is taken out of the market and the resident's displaced as a "better clientele" takes over.

Homeowners already face a losing battle with the clout of "developers" and business - big money versus a paycheck. I have watched this happen in my own neighborhood in Portland, Oregon.

The City of Portland decided to engage in a plan of "in fill" to combat urban sprawl. On the face of it, an admirable goal. However, the area I live in has larger lot sizes than those closer in. The new plan (and accompanying zoning) created a land grab to buy up properties, subdivided them and build townhouses, apartment buildings, and new homes. If people didn't want to sell their homes there was "part II" of "in-fill" - the Outer Southeast Sewer Project. Under this project homeowners were required to largely foot the bill for the extension of the city sewer system (which consistently dumps sewage into the Willamette River every time it rains), and mandated that everyone hook up to the system. The price tag on this (talking to neighbors) ranged from $12,000 - $30,000 per house. I live in a largely working class neighborhood (which is pretty much what "outer southeast" consists of). Many residents simply could not afford to pay the price of the sewer project and ended up selling their homes. The only big winners are the developers. They are making a killing.

Portland has also become a desirable property market for migrating Californians. Property prices are escalating out of site. Low and medium income folks are out of luck. This "desirability" is driving tremendous transitions which are hitting those with little or orly modest incomes. Gentrification is transforming neighborhoods and dislocating existing residents. In today's Oregonian, there is a front page article about mobile home parks being sold to developers, leaving residents no place to go - the land has literally been sold out from under them.

Now enter the Supreme Court ruling that allows local governments to "take" property and whole neighborhoods for "economic development." It certainly facilitates the transfer of property and wealth from those with few resources to those with big bucks. The eminent domain extension also means that homeowners don't even get what small benefit they might have from the increasing value of their property. It is theft, and it is another mechanism for the transfer of wealth.

For most of the population lucky enough to be homeowners (or "homeowers") the bulk of our "wealth" is our home. It is our savings account, and our economic "leverage" against hard times. The ruling of the Supreme Court only facilitates dispossession, and exacerbates the power and wealth imbalance within the United States.