Eminent domain evictions shouldn't be allowed for private gain Published in the Asbury Park Press 09/20/05 BY MICHAEL J. PANTER AND ROBERT L. MORGAN
The use of eminent domain has always involved a delicate balance between public benefit and property rights. Through a series of Supreme Court decisions, that balance has tipped away from property rights, and the once-clear definition of public benefit has been gradually broadened to suit the interests of municipal governments and powerful developers. Eminent domain is leaving an increasingly bitter taste upon the American tongue as more homeowners see their rights trampled. It is imperative that we act to protect our communities and keep this power from being abused for private gain. Eminent domain is appropriate when used fairly, responsibly and as a last resort. Before invoking this power, there must be a good-faith attempt at negotiating the sale of the properties in question. Homeowners must be justly compensated. Most importantly, the land should be used in a way that undeniably benefits the community, such as the construction of a road, bridge or school. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Kelo vs. New London has blown the doors open for further abuse of homeowners' rights, making the need for state-level regulation of eminent domain usage obvious and urgent. We request that our colleagues in the Legislature support a bill we have introduced to protect homeowners. Assembly bill 4392 will ensure eminent domain is reserved for situations that adhere to its original intent. Our bill would prohibit the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of residential and commercial properties that are legally occupied and maintained in accordance with applicable codes and standards. Under this bill, no families would see their perfectly inhabitable homes demolished for the construction of private office buildings, mega-stores or shopping centers. Eminent domain is still used today in some cases for the same reasons it was written into the constitution. Municipal governments invoke it to build roads, schools, access to utilities and, in general, to improve their residents' quality of life. These projects have undeniable benefit and value to communities, meeting the standard for eminent domain usage, and largely justifying the inconvenience they create. With Kelo vs. New London, the Supreme Court changed the standard test for the appropriate use of eminent domain from whether the property will be taken for public use to whether the taking of the property would benefit the public. The court's vague and dubious phrasing has gutted the ethical standard that has historically checked the power of eminent domain. An economic project that generates revenue and creates jobs fits the new definition of public use, because these benefits will theoretically pass to the entire community. There is no longer any legal distinction between urban-renewal plans that create great private reward and, for example, the construction of a public utility. A modest neighborhood could be declared blighted and replaced by condominiums or commercial property because those projects might generate higher tax revenues. If the standard for eminent domain is whether the local government can make more tax revenue from the existing property or from a new development, in most cases the new development would prevail. It is fundamentally unfair to evict homeowners for someone else's private gain. This practice understandably causes people to lose faith in government. The problems inherent in eminent domain are only exacerbated by the broad discretion the Supreme Court has given in its application. Expropriation does not create public property, as the land (and the lion's share of any benefit) is often turned over to a different private owner. As it is, municipalities often fail to truly engage in good-faith negotiation, and court rulings rarely provide satisfactory compensation to the evicted residents. After all, there is no financial appraisal for the hardship of losing one's home, especially one that has been inhabited by a family for generations. Economically disadvantaged communities and communities of color are most often the victims of eminent domain abuse. Few can afford the legal battle for their homes. With the standard for eminent domain loosened, the battle seems like a futile one. The silver lining in Kelo is the window the ruling left open for states to regulate the specific conditions of eminent domain use. Already, legislators in 12 states have introduced legislation that narrows the definition of public use in an effort to eliminate private property being taken for private use. Eminent domain remains a necessary tool for communities, but our bill creates a necessary and vital restriction on the concept of public use to ensure this government power is applied responsibly and appropriately. We ask that our fellow legislators join us in sponsoring our legislation. We further request that legislative leadership consider calling a special session to consider this bill as soon as possible to prevent more loss of property for New Jersey residents. Michael J. Panter and Robert L. Morgan are Democratic members of the Assembly, representing the 12th Legislative District, which includes parts of Monmouth and Mercer counties. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
