We commend the U.S. House of Representatives for overwhelmingly passing a bill today that would sanction state and local governments that use eminent domain for economic development. If the bill passes in the Senate, all federal funds designed to improve or grow the economies of those states or areas will be cut off for two years.
Eminent domain is the government’s power to use private property for its own purposes without the owner’s consent. The Fifth Amendment requires government to appropriate land for “public use” and give landowners “just compensation.”
Traditionally, the Supreme Court approved eminent domain for public projects like roads, airports and schools, and for revitalizing destitute areas, such as New York’s Times Square.
But in a landmark decision this June, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Conn., could use state eminent domain law to force several homeowners to give up their property for commercial use. The city argued that forcing homeowners to sell land for business development would create more than 1,000 jobs and increase tax revenues, revitalizing the city. Nine petitioners sued the city, claiming economic development was not a valid “public use” of their land.
In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court interpreted “public use” to include economic purposes. The decision outraged property rights advocates and many non-profit groups who feared it would allow government to misuse eminent domain power.
We were disheartened by the ruling. Nearly any construction project can be construed to have economic benefits, such as creating jobs and attracting businesses. Although opponents assert that states, not the federal government, should regulate the use of eminent domain, the right to own property without the threat of seizure is a pillar of our nation. Allowing government to replace one business with a different one that might generate more tax revenue undermines the very idea of the American Dream.
We thus support the House’s decision to pass HR 4128. It would not prohibit state and local governments from using eminent domain for legitimate projects, but it would make them carefully weigh the benefits of gaining land through eminent domain against losing federal money.
And governments will probably reconsider. According to an Oct. 31 Congressional Budget Office report, “implementing the bill would have no significant impact on the federal budget because most jurisdictions would not risk the economic development assistance they receive from the federal government.”
The bill defines economic development as taking private property without the owner’s conceit and transferring it to another private entity for “profit, or to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health.” It specifically exempts “removing harmful uses of land” and acquiring private property for hospitals, military bases and other public facilities.
The bill also rightly prohibits the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development.
We hope the Senate will quickly act on companion legislation introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Citizens who wish to protect the sanctity of their homes and livelihoods from undue government seizure should urge their senators to enact this necessary legislation.