In June, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court set a frightening precedent on eminent domain by ruling in favor of a Connecticut city that condemned and purchased a healthy neighborhood and sold it to a private corporation for development. In Kelo v. City of New London, the court’s 5-4 decision gave a green-light to broader and more pervasive government power to use eminent domain for non-governmental purposes. The court set the stage for increased use of eminent domain to give forcibly purchased property to corporations that intend to build shopping malls or factories on it.
In the Connecticut case, there were 115 residential and commercial lots located in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, on the outskirts of which the Pfizer pharmaceutical company was beginning to construct a major new research facility. The city of New London thought it could jump-start the area’s economy by seizing the properties and allowing a redevelopment corporation to purchase the lots from residents in the aging community. The city planned to build a resort hotel and conference center, a state park, office buildings and new residences. Fifteen of the residents resisted but eventually lost.
Oregonians now have the opportunity to shield themselves from the U.S. Supreme Court’s over-extension of eminent domain by passing Measure 39. The measure would restrict governments from selling private property seized through eminent domain to private parties unless the property poses a public health risk. Governments in Oregon would mainly be able to use eminent domain to seize property for the construction of roads, schools, public parks or other public projects.
Currently, under the fifth amendment governments can use eminent domain to purchase private property to redevelop for public use. What defines public use, however, is poorly defined. Many governments around the country, as in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, have seized private property and sold it to private entities for the sake of creating new businesses, saying that boosting the economy benefits the public.
Opponents of Measure 39 say the government should have the power to seize property and turn it over to businesses if those business will create a stronger economy by creating jobs and increasing tax revenue.
The use of eminent domain to boost an economy should not be an accepted method of serving public use. Although a portion of the public may want a place to purchase more goods, seizing a community’s homes for that purpose is unfair.
The current wording leaves the door open for politicians to sell forcefully procured property to favored businesses under the guise of “improving the economy.” Measure 39 would strengthen the obvious intent of the fifth amendment, ensuring that eminent domain is not abused for private gain.
If Measure 39 does not pass and governments retain the power to transfer property among private parties, groups of lower economic status will be adversely affected the most. Poorer neighborhoods, being seen as a subset of a community that does not necessarily advance the community’s economy, will be more likely taken by eminent domain. These groups will also be less able to defend themselves from cases of abuse because they are likely to be less politically powerful.
Beyond limiting abuse, Measure 39 would not disallow the use of eminent domain for all forms of urban renewal because it would still allow the government to condemn property that is unsafe.
Valid uses for eminent domain, such as urban renewal, would not be excessively hindered in the passage of Measure 39, because the government would still be able to condemn unsafe properties for redevelopment.
Oregonians should vote to approve Measure 39
Daily Emerald
October 16, 2006
0
More to Discover