A 5-4 vote in the land’s highest court struck down the hopes of seven families whose homes were targeted for demolition by local government to make way for hotels, office buildings, a health club, and a conference center.
New London has been suffering from severe economic conditions in the recent past. This motivated the city to enact the plan to stimulate the economy.
The families who protested the usurpations argued that large public projects like the building of schools and roads qualified government to use the so-called power of “eminent domain.” Homeowner Susette Kelo led the petition believing that commercial development did not qualify as public use.
Enough of the justices on the high court disagreed to deny the homeowners their wishes. After a split decision, Justice Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion that the idea that eminent domain cannot be used for economic stimulus was “supported by neither precedent nor logic.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist led the three other dissenters, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
Property rights owners are incensed over the matter, as the ruling could have a domino effect around the country in similar cases.
“With today’s decision, no one’s property is safe,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. “Any time a government official thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you’re doing, he can order it condemned and transferred.”
Conditions for eminent domain are listed under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It protects citizens from having their property taken from the government without being paid for it. Most interpret “just compensation” to mean the current market value.
