February 21, 2005
In this case, the town of New London Connecticut is seeking to take several properties in the Fort Trumbull area to facilitate a new private development centered around a research facility for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. Unlike past instances where municipalities have used a claim of blight and redevelopment there is no complaint about the condition of the area. The town simply feels someone else can make better use of the property. In other words, someone else can put it to a use that will generate more tax revenue.
I would hope that before reaching a decision the members of the court would take the time to read and consider the relevant constitutional provision. That of course would be the Fifth Amendment.
...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.What the court needs to look at closely is the question of what constitutes “public use.” Is it public use if the land taken is given over to another private owner? Will the public get to use the land once it has become the site of a Pfizer research center? More than likely the public will never set foot on the property. Publilc is public and private is private. A Pfizer research facility is hardly a public property.
If the standard of “public use” can be set so low as to be just increased tax revenue then where do you draw the line? How much additional tax revenue qualifies as a public use, or rather how little? Under this standard, what is to stop a contractor with connections at town hall from saying to his friends, you know that little cape on Elm Street? If you could take that for me I can convert it into a 4 bedroom colonial and you can get more taxes on the property.
The tax value of a proposed use of a property should not be part of determining the legitimacy of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment sets forth the terms under which private property may be taken for public use. It sets the principles under which the government can convert private property to public property.
Filling the coffers at town hall is not “public use” it's public greed and invitation corruption and abuse, and a complete abrogation of the property rights of individuals.
UPDATE:More on the case from Neal Boortz.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 09:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
We had a case here in Bridgeport a few years ago where the city tried to buy forcibly, via eminent domain, waterfront property to selll to a casino developer. The owner of the property (a bait and tackle shop as I recall) took the city to court.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the city had not secured a deal with the developer yet. So, the larger issue of public/private was never addressed.
Looks like, finally, the SCOTUS is going to give it an airing. They'd better do the right thing, I tells ya, or all property owners are screwed.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at February 21, 2005 11:36 AM (itU4G)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
