Activism
posted in General |ACTIVISM
The US Supreme Court gave us a good example of judicial activism last week with a decision that significantly changed the rules on Eminent Domain — which is a doctrine that allows the taking of private property by the government. For many many years, eminent domain has been used by governments to take private property for public use under limited circumstances. For example, land acquisition is necessary when building roads, bridges, dams, etc., etc. These are clearly cases of public use which is the ultimate purpose of the land acquisition.
But what a difference in the use of one word – “use” vs “benefit”.
The City of New London, CT has fallen on bad times, and a major effort has been made to renew, re-build and revitalize the City. A laudable goal. In the City's master plan, private land was to be seized in order to re-develop the blighted areas. So in order to accomplish this worthy goal, eminent domain was used to seize the privately owned land. But some of the land owners objected to the seizure of their land. Hence the court case. The question wasn't the amount of payment for the land — it was whether the City had the right to take the land.
Ultimately, the US Supreme Court upheld the City on the basis that the taking would benefit the City and its citizens. Thus, the criterion changed from “public use” to “public benefit”. And further, under the City's plan the properties would change hands and the land ownership would transfer to the developers.
By broadening the permissible use of eminent domain, the court has said in effect that “my property can be taken and given to someone else on the premise that the change will benefit the City — economically” So instead of public use, the justification hencefort will also be public “benefit”, including economic benefit.
That is a mighty big step. Several states are already initiating legislation that will negate the New London decision, and in this case, such State laws are valid.
One word — big difference.