Eminent domain: the good and the bad
First, the good. There is some reform in eminent domain law in New York:
Nearly four years after a Port Chester property owner went to court to challenge New York state’s rules for taking private property, Gov. George Pataki has signed a law reforming condemnation procedures.
The new law means property owners in New York no longer need to pore over tiny legal notices, searching for clues of government plans to take their land; governments will need to notify each property owner by certified mail or personal delivery.
The eminent domain law reform was signed Tuesday by the governor and was announced by his office yesterday.
It grew out of a battle by Bill Brody, a 42-year-old businessman from Rye, to hold onto four sites in Port Chester’s downtown redevelopment area.
“I’m very glad that the governor agreed with what I have been saying all along and that the state is going in the right direction,” he said yesterday in front his building-supply business in the Bronx.
Brody said he never saw the condemnation plan announcement in a July 1999 legal notice, which neither named him nor identified his Port Chester property by address. Because of that, Brody said, he failed to challenge the condemnation in the 30-day period allowed.
Now, the bad. This article equates eminent domain with despotism:
The U.S. Constitution, properly construed by a vigilant Supreme Court, prevents untrammeled power, which is the definition of despotism. But the human propensity for abusing power — a propensity the Constitution’s unsentimental framers understood and tried to shackle with prudent language — is perennial. There always are people trying to carve crevices in constitutional terminology to allow scope for despotism. Such carving is occurring in Connecticut.
Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4 to 3 ruling last March by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term “despotism” exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.
That city, like many cities, needs more revenue. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company’s $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood’s middle-class homeowners.
Given the Supreme Court’s recent travesties, I’m not particularly hopeful or encouraged by the fact they may visit the issue. They could surprise me, though.
September 20th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
1) Need a bit more info. When i was in CT, that section of New London was this close to being a burned out slum. If that’s the case, then the city’s actions could be justified.
2) The biggest problem with eminent domain is the corruption by private interests. If a business needs land, let it buy it. Heck, let the government help by it if the voter’s approve. But emininet domain needs to bereserved for things entirely in the public sphere — roads, schools, public transportation right away, etc. Anything else just opens up way too much corruption.
September 20th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
1) not if they’re taking it to give to private developers and only if it’s for public use.
2) they are taking it from individuals to give to corporations:
https://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=new+london&submit=Search
September 21st, 2004 at 11:15 am
1)How far do you go with that? Say sosme slum lord leaves a rotting building up that is home to drug dealers. itsa real blight on the neighborhood, and it attracts crime. The city condemns it properly, then it owns a vacant lot. Would you allow the city to sell that lot to a private company or individual?
2)Then they are wrong.
September 21st, 2004 at 11:27 am
itsa real blight on the neighborhood,
When a city uses eminent domain to take care of a problem that should be covered by building codes, it’s abuse. Every city, i would bet, has rules covering blighted property. In California recently, there was case of property incorrectly classified (as alleged by some familiar with the case) as blighted. In actuality, the city wanted it to give to a developer and it was easier to call it blighted than try to prove public use.
and it attracts crime.
people have right to own property, even shitty property in a bad part of town. The police should do their job.
The city condemns it properly, then it owns a vacant lot.
In that case, it did not use eminent domain. It enforced building codes to close it. I don’t think the city would own it, though. It would probably be condemned and access denied until such time as repairs were done. If the repairs aren’t done or the property isn’t sold to someone who will repair it, then the city could pursue taking it.
September 21st, 2004 at 3:13 pm
“people have right to own property, even shitty property in a bad part of town. The police should do their job.”
but they don’t have the right to ignore their property to the point thatn it gets other people killed, which is what happens a lot in inner cities.
“When a city uses eminent domain to take care of a problem that should be covered by building codes, it’s abuse. Every city, i would bet, has rules covering blighted property. In California recently, there was case of property incorrectly classified (as alleged by some familiar with the case) as blighted. In actuality, the city wanted it to give to a developer and it was easier to call it blighted than try to prove public use.”
Well, no — if the proeprty owner allows a building to become a threat to the well being of other esidents, then simple fines won’t cut it. Sometimes removing it from them is the only solution.
And just becasue sometimes htere is abuse doesn’t mean that eminnent domain shoujld ba thrown own any more than the fact that sometimes compnaies knowingly poison their workers mean that capitalism should be thrown out.
And abus
September 21st, 2004 at 6:13 pm
“but they don’t have the right to ignore their property to the point thatn it gets other people killed, which is what happens a lot in inner cities.”
Their property is not getting people killed. Other people are killing them. It’s a police matter.
“Well, no – if the proeprty owner allows a building to become a threat to the well being of other esidents, then simple fines won’t cut it. Sometimes removing it from them is the only solution. ”
I’m not disagreeing but that is not eminent domain. That is subject to building codes and subsequent threat of confiscation for not maintaing property.
And i never said it should be thrown out, only advocate monitoring it’s abuse, such as in New London where they are taking from one private party for the benefit of another.