A Supreme Court ruling has granted the city of New London, Conn. approval to demolish a neighborhood of homes in order to make room for a hotel and an office complex.
“It’s just lower-middle-class folks losing property for some shiny new project,” said Republican House minority leader Robert M. Ward. “That’s just plain wrong.”
In doing so, the majority of the court stretched the definition of ”public use,” which in eminent domain terms usually applies to the right of the government to seize homes for public works projects, schools, libraries, and the like. Now the court has given permission to many municipalities to take perfectly functional private homes and businesses so they can approve upscale private projects capable of paying higher property taxes.
Takings can be justified if the neighborhood is a slum that poses health and safety risks. Massachusetts law, for example, requires municipalities to prove that properties targeted for economic development are ”blighted open areas.” As the Supreme Court made clear, states are still free to pass tough laws that restrict the kind of abuses seen in New London. This week’s court decision should prompt many states to do exactly that. Absent such laws, the upper hand belongs to private developers whose interests lie mainly in creating commercial profit centers for themselves.
“The governor said it is an issue the legislature ought to consider,” said Dennis Schain, a spokesman for Governor Rell. “It’s one that’s been controversial not just in Connecticut but around the country.”
Property rights groups believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling will lead to more cases of local governments seizing residential property, but the concept is still viewed as a political risk for obvious reasons.
Chris is a staff writer for Murdok. Visit Murdok for the latest ebusiness news.
