It's a thorny issue.
And it isn't as if this country hasn't dealt with the various issues of private property ownership rights before. During the railroad golden age, the issue of individual property rights had been endlessly debated.
The rise of "eminent domain" came to be and this was accepted with a shrug of equanimity by the public.
It's not that property owners would not be, under eminent domain or the new law of the land courtesy of the Supreme Court yesterday (6/23/05), reimbursed for the fair value of their property should the property be land better used for social good. Such as for public schools. Or railroad tracks.
The past week's Supreme Court ruling, based on a 5-4 vote as they all are of late, has deemed that property can also be seized for private economic development, ie: the "public good".
It's just that private property owners on land deemed better suited for economic development can't demand ridiculous prices for their property beyond fair market. A tactic many private property owners used to deny developers use of their land for that next super-duper shopping mall.
Developers had no right to the rule of eminent domain as then defined. They either had to pay the asking price or walk away.
Now the government can broaden eminent domain classification to include private property better suited to economic development.
It's still a dangerous game.
Though there are several considerations for rumination before dismissing the notion out of hand.
If the only thing preventing a big manufacturer from building a plant that would employ thousands is the owner of a small townhouse who refuses to sell, then the local politicos, including the citizens, might favor classifying the home as eligible for sale under the new rule favoring economic development over the rights of the town home property owner.
But suppose my small community, located in fact not far from a bubbling tourist area, was determined to be the perfect place for a happening shopping center in sales-tax free Delaware. And suppose the local elected official responsible for such decisions receives a nice donation from the shopping center developer to his/her political PAC?
Article comments