Can they take your land?

Local officials agree: the Supreme Court's precedent-setting decision that government may condemn property for economic development is a bad idea. The Fifth Amendment prohibits government from taking private property except for public use and with fair compensation to the owner. Such property is generally used for obviously public projects, like highways and utilities. But a few weeks ago justices voted 5-4 in favor of the Connecticut city of New London, which seeks to use its power of eminent domain to condemn 1.54 acres containing 15 homes so that a private developer may lease and build a pharmaceuticals research center, hotel, and new residences on the land. Monroe Supervisor Sandy Leonard cannot remember any eminent domain issue in her town. She consulted with the town historian and one long-time councilman — neither could remember any such case. Leonard did have an opinion, though. "I don't think anyone is truly in favor of grabbing someone's property," she said. "It would not be my first choice. We would try negotiation and persuasion first." Honey Bernstein, supervisor of the Town of Goshen, disagrees strongly with the Supreme Court's decision. "I can understand taking property when it is needed," she said. "For purely economic reasons, this is a tremendous imposition. It is the taking of people's property rights for very wrong reasons. It is extreme and it is wrong." In Chester, Supervisor Bill Tully remembers a friendly eminent domain issue when the town needed land for Chester Commons, a recreational park. Two of the three owners of the property agreed to sell to the town, but one owner was against it. The town exercised its power of eminent domain then, but Tully said that for him it would be a tough call. "I'd be very reluctant to execute the principle of eminent domain," he said. "It would really need to be strictly for the public good. To enhance business, I'd be reluctant to do that. I don't agree with it." In 2000, around the same time that New London approved the redevelopment project, the Village of Warwick lost its Grand Union supermarket. CVS, a major drugstore chain, was awarded the lease to the property, leaving the village with no supermarket. Two years later, the village declared the property a blighted area and began condemnation proceedings. If it had been successful, the village would have taken the property and rented the building to an independent food store. One year later, the village gave up that plan. "In the end, the fight for a food market was really for the public good," said Mayor Michael Newhard. "It was important for us as a community. But the idea of potentially taking homes away for a large box or development plan is different. It is a slippery slope. Compensation must be beyond the value of the home. It is the loss of something else — uprooting your family." Though local experiences with eminent domain have not been as far-reaching as the New London one, the Warwick situation did divide the community and even influence an election. Town of Warwick Supervisor Michael Sweeton said the town has never used eminent domain, to the best of his knowledge. And he joins other officials in opposing the court's decision in this instance. "This seems heavy handed," he said. "The core issue here is, is this what the government should be doing? I don't think it is the right way to use eminent domain." Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority decision, acknowledging the hardship to homeowners but asserting the Court should not second-guess local governments. Agreeing with him were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. In her opinion against the decision, Sandra Day O'Connor stated: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.