| Eminent domain
is a very important governmental right in that it provides for
the public good. Traditionally eminent domain has been used
for the construction of roads, railroads, and governmental buildings.
When done properly, those whose properties have been condemned
are equitably compensated for their loss and given plenty of
time to relocate.
However, certain developers have seen eminent
domain as a tool to enrich themselves at the cost of the personal
rights and freedoms of others. Since eminent domain is a right
primarily reserved for governmental entities, it requires a
willing accomplice in government in order to accomplish a land
grab.
A case in point. In Norwood, Ohio, a private
developer has asked the city to condemn five homes and businesses
so that he can expand one of his developments.
The developer provided a study to the Norwood
City Council that indicated that 99 homes (including the five
that he wanted) were in a blighted area. The Council used that
study to declare the area as blighted, even though none of the
homes were in disrepair or in arrears on property taxes. The
declaration gives the city the ability to condemn any or all
of the 99 homes, paving the way for the developer to bring in
new projects that presumably would pay higher property taxes.
But it gets worse. The Institute for Justice,
a non-profit law firm that specializes in bringing suit against
the government, on behalf of the homeowners and business owners,
filed a complaint in court on September 23, 2003, challenging
the City of Norwood. In November of that year, the trial court
ruled in the city’s favor.
The Institute then filed an appeal with the
Ohio Court of Appeals. In September of 2004, that court ruled
that all 99 of the property owners (not just the 5 who were
being immediately effected) in the “blighted” area could bring
a lawsuit against the city for violation of their statutory
and constitutional rights.
In June of 2004, the Hamilton County Court of
Common Pleas ruled that the City of Norwood was justified in
the condemnation of the 5 homes, but also ruled that the city
had “abused its discretion” in declaring all 99 of the properties
to be in a “blighted” area. They ruled that the 5 homes could
be taken from their owners and given to the developer.
To make things worse, the judge later ruled
that the developer was free to destroy one of the five properties
even though the case was being appealed.
In another case, the State of Mississippi reportedly
offered a very generous $300 million incentive package to Nissan
to convince them to build a new truck factory in their state.
Part of the package included the provision of
a 1,400 acre parcel of land to Nissan, land that the state did
not own. Initially, the state focused on taking a 30 acre area
of land that was occupied by three separate homeowners, even
though that portion of the land was not necessary for the plant’s
construction.
The director of the Mississippi Development
Authority was reported to have said, “It’s not that Nissan is
going to leave if we don’t get that land. What’s important is
the message it would send to other companies if we are unable
to do what we said we would do.”
The Mississippi Supreme Court has thus far ruled
in favor of the homeowners, stopping all of the property seizures
involved in the Nissan case until it can make a final ruling.
Sometimes abusers don’t even bother with following
eminent domain procedures. Around midnight on March 31, 2003,
Chicago Mayor Daley sent bulldozers into Meigs Field, a small
airport near downtown Chicago, to destroy the runway, stranding
16 small aircraft at the airport. Daley initially claimed it
was for security reasons, but it has been speculated that he
wanted to redevelop the property for other purposes. Few people
knew about the destruction until the following morning. The
media, airport employees and even the FAA were not told in advance
about Daley's plan to force the airport closure, even though
federal regulations required a one-year notice.
Obviously this is a very emotional issue, and
one that is complicated by the need to exercise eminent domain
in legitimate situations.
However, this is a right that is easily abused
when greed, need, or political ambitions override good judgement
or the concern for fellow citizens.
Churches especially need to be on guard for
this type of abuse, since their tax-exempt status makes them
an attractive target.
|
