The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the city of New London, CT, can take people's homes away from them and turn the property over to a developer. All the city needs to do is provide what the Constitution calls "just compensation" to the homeowners. The last clause of the oft-quoted fifth amendment says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."But what exactly is "just compensation"?
When property is seized by the government in order to build a bridge, or a highway, or a school, the owner is paid based on the market rate of his property. But the "market rate" doesn't take into account value placed on a person's home, particularly if that person grew up in that home. Sentimental value cannot be measured. Because of this, and because many elected officials understand this (they grew up in homes too), eminent domain is rarely used unless it is deemed absolutely necessary.
Today, however, fewer people live in the same building for very long. People move often, and houses are sold and resold many times. Elected officials, therefore, will also place less sentimental value on homes, since they too will have moved many times. As a result, they are much more likely to invoke the power of eminent domain than in the past.
And the Supreme Court has given them a golden opportunity.
Time was, local governments had to show that the changes forcing people from their homes benefited the entire community in very specific ways, and didn't benefit any specific power bloc. Now, all a wealthy developer needs to demonstrate is that a new development will result in higher tax revenues, and the wrecking ball comes out.
People can now be driven from their homes in droves, all in the name of higher tax revenues, but really for the benefit of wealthy developers. These people will now have to find new homes, and not in the neighborhoods where they had been living - those newly developed neighborhoods will now be priced out of the people's ability to pay.
The Court said that local governments can limit the use of eminent domain, but seriously, how many city councils are going to put limits on their own power? And since local governments aren't going to limit themselves, and the Supreme Court has ruled that nobody else can limit them, what can be done?
Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in over 200 years. But the time has come for Congress and the states to ensure that homeowners can once again be "secure in their ... houses ... against unreasonable ... seizures" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV). Thanks to the Supreme Court, only a Constitutional amendment will do.
Copyright 2005, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu