Update: Fifth Amendment Takings Clause...New Standard of Law

Sirens….loudspeaker from police car:  PULL OVER, BUDDY.

Cop: Sir, we are seizing your vehicle, but will give you blue book value for it.

driver: But why officer? I did nothing wrong.

Cop: You are correct sir, you did nothing wrong, but your vehicle will be better utilized by this gentleman over here. He will drive it more, using more gas, providing more jobs for gas station and oil workers, not to mention environmental activists.

driver: But it is mine...how can you just take it?

cop: The city council voted, it was 5 to 4, but majority rules you know, so please sir, get out of the car now.

driver: Is this America today?

Cop: Yes.
driver: What is next? my computer because I spend too much time on the Antagonist Website, not being productive?

Cop: We took that this morning. Here is your check for $100, the value we decided it was worth.

Should the Supreme Court have Allowed Public Taking for Private Development?

The Supreme Court recently decided a case on the limits of eminent domain and the rights of individuals to be safe from having their land seized and sold to another private concern, and determined that it was fair game for municipalities.

The land is not stolen, but is appraised and "Fair Market Value" is given for the land. In this case a town in Connecticut wanted to entice a drug manufacturer into expanding its presence and build a new facility. As part of the enticement, the town condemned a neighborhood so that it could be knocked down and a new community could be built. Some of the owners in the neighborhood are fighting the taking on Constitutional Ground. The Court has yet to rule.

Land has always been treated under law as a special type of property, and typically equal cash value is not enough. The law recognizes that people have ties to land beyond simply the dollar value. Saying that they were duly compensated at the "Fair Market Value" should not be enough when the taking is simply for a private development.

In this case, the developer could have purchased the land individually from the home owners like any other developer. If the price was high enough, I imagine they would have all sold, regardless of ties to the neighborhood. The condemnation merely saved money for the Corporate developer at the expense of citizens.

Examples such as railroads and Power lines did not typically take entire neighborhoods away. They would take a small portion or right-of-way, but the land owner kept the majority of the land. Other takings like the WTC were developments by Government Entities, even if the actual developer was not. This Connecticut case seems to be especially egregious in its scope and purpose.

I also think it is a good argument that if economic development is a good enough reason to take any land, no land is safe. Having no floor leaves us all at risk of a developer selling growth to the community at your expense. It also seems like a good way for a community to get rid of "undesirable" neighbors by gutting all the poor neighborhoods and replacing them with Home Depot.

The previous standard of blight seems to meet the competing interests of community development and private property.

But, now you know. You own your property only at the will of a majority of your city council.