Today marks the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the controversial case of Kelo v. New London, which upheld city governments' power to use eminent domain in order to condemn blighted properties and redevelop neighborhoods.
Many Americans recoil almost reflexively against eminent domain. The prospect of a resident losing his or her house obviously "hits home" with many citizens, and should be allowed only in the rarest instances. In his June 1 diary on the issue, maxlongstreet concludes that progressives should never support the use of eminent domain, but should "fight it everywhere and anywhere." Because eminent domain is unpopular, he contends, progressives should pounce on this issue.
Like max, I live in New Jersey, where "pay-to-play" is rampant: developers contribute to political campaigns, and politicians in turn do the bidding of developers. There has been ample abuse of eminent domain here in the Garden State, as local governments have condemned supposedly "blighted" properties, forced residents and business owners to sell, and enabled developers to reap enormous profits by building luxury condos or high-rise office buildings on the site. Currently, the New Jersey legislature is currently considering limiting the use of eminent domain.
But not every instance of redevelopment or eminent domain is necessarily corrupt. For the past couple years, the local government in my hometown of Highland Park has been engaged in an effort to redevelop our downtown (the government created a Redevelopment Authority, based on the New Jersey statute.) For the most part, redevelopment entails some cosmetic improvements to sidewalks and storefronts. But one block, in the middle of our business district, is quite dilapidated, and prevents the entire downtown from becoming as attractive, vibrant, and successful as it ought to be. This block is by no means a slum, but it does contain four auto repair garages, a used car lot, and two vacant lots--all on a single block. Under redevelopment law, the town has carefully applied a prescribed set of criteria to designate several of these businesses as inappropriate or the lots underutilized. None of these businesses would be permitted under the town's current zoning ordinance; all were created years ago. Until this block is improved the downtown will remain unattractive to pedestrians, shoppers, and potential new businesses.
Currently, Highland Park is negotiating with the owners of properties on this block, who face a choice: they can redevelop their own property or sell to someone who will redevelop it and relocate their business to a section of town in which auto repairs and sales are concentrated. Under redevelopment, property owners and business owners will be fairly compensated for their property and for the full cost of relocating their business--in fact many business owners profit economically from redevelopment. If they refuse to redevelop or sell, the town could ultimately invoke eminent domain to compel them to do so (compensating them for the market value of their property). No one in this town is eager to see eminent domain invoked, and it probably will not be used. The property owners and business owners on this block initially resisted redevelopment, but now seem inclined to cooperate. But without the government's ultimate power of eminent domain, most of the business owners would simply refuse to cooperate in redevelopment.
When did progressives become such stalwart defenders of unrestricted property rights? Eminent domain is a longstanding and legitimate power of government, not some Johnny-come-lately scheme to stoke the real estate market. The most conservative Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court--O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas--dissented from last year's Kelo decision, which upheld the power of eminent domain. The crusade against eminent domain has been led by the Castle Coalition, an affiliate of the conservative/libertarian Institute for Justice. The Coalition's harping about eminent domain "abuse" is an overwrought effort to liken this issue rhetorically to the ugly issues of child abuse, spouse abuse, and drug abuse.
Eminent domain must be used very sparingly and judiciously, but not every instance in which it is used qualifies as "abuse." Property owners have rights, to be sure, but the community also has rights. But just because this town, or any town, allowed some unsightly repair garages or other inappropriate businesses to be created in its central business district decades ago does not mean that its citizens must be bound to the mistakes of the past indefinitely.
[A personal note: I am not some damned yuppie, itching to replace blue-collar businesses with trendy boutiques, and I am intimately familiar with the views of the mechanics and used car salesmen who would prefer not to re-locate their businesses. My father was a junkman, who spent an inordinate amount of time and legal fees fighting the local government's efforts (in another town and state) to compel him to clean up or move his junkyard. I always admired him for sticking up for himself, but junkyards are inescapably ugly, and the town government was justified in seeking to regulate the appearance of his business or relocate it as the city grew.]