|
In a 5-4 ruling, which was closer than expected by most
court-watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of
eminent domain for economic development, ruling that such
development satisfies the "public use" requirement
of the Takings Clause.
At issue was the 90-acre Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan
in New London, Connecticut, which the city hopes will bring
more than 1,000 new jobs and increased revenues for social
services to revitalize that economically depressed area.
Nine landowners who own 15 properties within the development
site refused to sell, and the city commenced condemnation
proceedings. None of the properties is alleged to be blighted.
Although portions of the development are earmarked for a
public riverwalk and other public amenities, other portions
will be used for office space, condominiums, and other facilities
not open to the public.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens observed
that the court had long ago abandoned the notion that condemnations
must be limited to situations where the condemned property
is directly owned and used by the public. Rather, for more
than 100 years the court has adhered to "the broader
and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public
purpose.'" Citing early examples of condemnations to
promote mining, farming, railroads, private power-producing
dams, and other economic enterprises, the court concluded
that there is no principled way of distinguishing takings
for economic development. The court also invoked longstanding
precedent requiring deference to legislative judgments regarding
the need to acquire property, as well as federalism principles
that compel respect for state and local decisionmaking.
It is important to note that the ruling is not a "blank
check" to government officials. The court observed
that condemnations may not proceed "under the mere
pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was
to bestow a private benefit." It stressed that New
London was indisputably in economic distress and that its
use of eminent domain was part of a "carefully considered"
comprehensive development plan that had been subject to
thorough deliberation. It further noted that at the time
of the condemnation decision, New London had not chosen
a private developer or the private tenants, thereby reducing
the risk that the condemnations were for the benefit of
particular private interests. The court also emphasized
that a different result might be obtained where, "outside
the confines of an integrated development plan," a
city transfers "citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will
put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more
taxes," a scenario that "would certainly raise
a suspicion" that the takings was for a private purpose.
Careful attention also should be paid to the concurring
opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, who provided the critical
fifth vote in favor of New London. His opinion reads like
a list of "best practices," and he expresses willingness
to scrutinize future condemnations in appropriate cases
where takings lack adequate consideration. In particular,
he insisted that a court "should strike down a taking
that, by a clear showing, is intended to favor a particular
private party, with only incidental or pretextual public
benefits." He quoted with approval the trial court's
conclusion that for economic development takings that involve
a transfer of the land to a private party, "the court
must review the record to decide if the stated public purpose
- economic advantage to a city sorely in need of it - is
only incidental to the benefits that will be confined on
private parties of a development plan." He observed,
among other things, that New London suffers from serious
economic depression, adopted a comprehensive development
plan, reviewed several development plans, and chose a developer
from a group of applicants rather than identifying one beforehand.
The project was supported by substantial state funds, and
nothing in the record
indicated a desire to benefit a particular private party.
CRC coauthored an amicus brief in support of New London
on behalf of a broad coalition of state and local government
groups.
|
