Worth the read. A taste:

For years, municipalities and community development agencies have successfully argued that state and local seizures of private property for purposes of economic growth, job creation and tax revenue maximization are valid “public uses” of eminent domain powers under federal and state constitutions.

The argument greatly expanded upon the popular notion that eminent domain meant that government takings of private property would be solely for public projects such as roads, bridges, parks, schools, government installations, public buildings and the like. Courts have long bought into the broadened argument and sanctioned takings of private property for the benefit of other private entities.

Hence, Norwood, Ohio, declared some private homes “blighted” to justify their razing to make way for a more tax-productive mall. An Arizona town invoked eminent domain proceedings to replace a brake shop with a more favored hardware store (dispute featured in a TV news report). The New Jersey shore town of Long Branch is trying to take oceanfront homes from present owners and build expensive new condos for yuppies. New London, Conn., seized some perfectly fine waterfront homes to replace them with an office building (litigation now before the U.S. Supreme Court).

All over the country, localities have dispossessed one set of property owners to make room for builders of stadiums, auto assembly plants, racetracks, casinos and big box stores. If someone else could make more money with your property and pay higher taxes, the town would boot you off that property and give it to that other party.

But one court is saying, “Hold on there! Not so quick!” In a broad ruling delivered this July, the Michigan Supreme Court has caused all jurisdictions across the nation to rethink the use of government eminent domain powers to advance economic goals and better land use agendas.

In Michigan, the court decided that a private entity’s pursuit of profit does not constitute public use. Good.

This article details a property owner’s victory:

Despite the loss of three federal grants comprising 90 percent of the $7.4 million it would cost and the possibility of repaying $300,000 for already-spent funds, the Oakdale City Council voted down a proposal Monday night to expand the Oakdale Airport through condemnation procedures.

The action, made on a 3-2 split vote, also provided a win for JLG Holsteins, who opposed the Eminent Domain process on 2.7 acres of its property. The argument posed by an attorney for the firm was countered by the City Special Attorney for Eminent Domain on the grounds that it did not meet a “legal” definition for public necessity.

This article addresses the use of eminent domain as an economic development tool rather than a public use measure.

And this article addresses the use of eminent domain to make a lake.

It’s good to see some victories for property owners or eventually all land would be for public use.

Posted in Eminent Domain on August 19th, 2004 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |