 |
| Kelo House then and now. |
Kelo & Eminent Domain, Ten Years Later | National Review Online
by Richard Epstein June 23, 2015
There has been some progress, but much is left to do.
Ten years ago, on June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court dropped
a judicial thunderbolt in Kelo v. City of New London. By a narrow
five-to-four margin it rejected a spirited challenge that Susette Kelo
and her neighboring landowners had raised against the ambitious land-use
development plan put forward by the City of New London, Ct. The
formulaic account of the holding is that a local government does not
violate the “public use” component of the Constitution’s takings clause —
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation” — when it condemns property that will be turned over to a
private developer for private development. Under the logic of Justice
John Paul Stevens, so long as there is an indirect promised public
benefit from the development process, the public-use inquiry is at an
end, and Ms. Kelo can be driven out of her pink house by the water.
a judicial thunderbolt in Kelo v. City of New London. By a narrow
five-to-four margin it rejected a spirited challenge that Susette Kelo
and her neighboring landowners had raised against the ambitious land-use
development plan put forward by the City of New London, Ct. The
formulaic account of the holding is that a local government does not
violate the “public use” component of the Constitution’s takings clause —
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation” — when it condemns property that will be turned over to a
private developer for private development. Under the logic of Justice
John Paul Stevens, so long as there is an indirect promised public
benefit from the development process, the public-use inquiry is at an
end, and Ms. Kelo can be driven out of her pink house by the water.
Ten years later, my reaction is the same as it was at the time: truly
horrible. Justice Stevens and the Supreme Court were tone-deaf as to
what moves people in dealing with property. Of all the cases decided
since the year 2000, Kelo may not be the most important; ironically, it
certainly was not the most controversial. But hands down, it was the
decision that got more people indignant than any other.
horrible. Justice Stevens and the Supreme Court were tone-deaf as to
what moves people in dealing with property. Of all the cases decided
since the year 2000, Kelo may not be the most important; ironically, it
certainly was not the most controversial. But hands down, it was the
decision that got more people indignant than any other.
The bipartisan coalition in opposition was, and is, easy to identify. On
the right, there are folks who think that a person’s home is his
castle, and thus resent any forced displacement of individuals for the
benefit of some supposed social good. And that anger doubles because of
the crackpot and visionary nature of the particular plan at issue in
Kelo. The communitarians on the left were upset that Pfizer, the company
that was going to use the seized land for a research facility, should
flex its muscles in ways that prey on individual people.
the right, there are folks who think that a person’s home is his
castle, and thus resent any forced displacement of individuals for the
benefit of some supposed social good. And that anger doubles because of
the crackpot and visionary nature of the particular plan at issue in
Kelo. The communitarians on the left were upset that Pfizer, the company
that was going to use the seized land for a research facility, should
flex its muscles in ways that prey on individual people.
Anyone who wants to get a sense of the process would be well-advised to
real Ilya Somin’s new book, The Grasping Hand, which offers a painful
blow-by-blow account of how good intentions for redevelopment were so
badly misdirected that ten years later the seized property remains
empty. Perhaps the only nice feature about the case is that Ms. Kelo’s
pink house was whisked away to another site, so that the newly vacant
land can be used to collect debris that washes up on the shore. Yes, the
grandiose development plans for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood never
got to first base. As it turned out, New London was too slow off the
mark, other communities built the ancillary facilities that Pfizer
wanted, and the company pulled out of New London once the tax subsidies
ran out.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420144/kelo-eminent-domain-richard-epstein
real Ilya Somin’s new book, The Grasping Hand, which offers a painful
blow-by-blow account of how good intentions for redevelopment were so
badly misdirected that ten years later the seized property remains
empty. Perhaps the only nice feature about the case is that Ms. Kelo’s
pink house was whisked away to another site, so that the newly vacant
land can be used to collect debris that washes up on the shore. Yes, the
grandiose development plans for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood never
got to first base. As it turned out, New London was too slow off the
mark, other communities built the ancillary facilities that Pfizer
wanted, and the company pulled out of New London once the tax subsidies
ran out.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420144/kelo-eminent-domain-richard-epstein
No comments:
Post a Comment