Property seizure backlash

In Lodi, N.J., hundreds of trailer park residents may soon be squatters if the city decides their homes are hurting land values.

In East Baltimore, the Baltimore Development Corp. wants to turn 2,000 largely vacant properties into a biotech park.

In New London, Conn., a cluster of homes will be bulldozed to make way for hotels and health clubs.

Such seizures of private property, while not new, are drawing new controversy.

The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kelo v. City of New London has emboldened those who support the taking of private land for public use - even when local governments are doing so to foster private development. But the same decision is fueling a nationwide backlash - rippling into homeowner outrage and legislative action.

The ruling resonates for millions of Americans because the issue hits - literally - close to their homes. During the Fourth of July weekend, anti-Kelo activists accused the courts of betraying one of the founding principles of the republic, citizens' right to their property. A Houston Chronicle editorial went so far as to compare the decision to communist Chinese land-use policy.

Now state lawmakers from New York to Alaska are urging limits on when a "public use" justifies the seizure of land. Congress is also moving on the issue - starting with a House vote last week to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized for private development.

"We will see states digest the Kelo decision and then determine what they will do with it," said Larry Morandi, with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

How far the backlash will go may not become clear until next year. But the battle promises to clarify government's use of eminent domain for economic development.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In the wake of the Kelo ruling, property-rights crusaders have responded through grass-roots activism and elected officials. Bills and amendments that would limit use of eminent domain were generated in state legislatures and Congress within days of the Supreme Court decision.

The House speaker in Florida and Gov. Sonny Perdue in Georgia are among those backing a review of eminent domain in light of the Kelo ruling. In Texas, a constitutional amendment in the House and Senate would ban the use of eminent domain solely for economic purposes.

In Congress, Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas has introduced the protection of homes, small businesses, and private property act. A similar, bipartisan bill has been introduced in the House.

Page: 1 | 2