Editorial: Nothing Is Funny Nor Fair About Eminent Domain

Newspapers across America are having a field day with Supreme Court Justice David Souter and recent court decision to allow eminent domain to be used as a tool to relieve private owners of their property. There is nothing funny nor fair about it. If a river city decides to take property away from a barge terminal because it would rather build condominiums on the waterfront, it may well be accomplished. We are now seeing along the Gulf Coast the error in building too close to water.

One developer wants the city of Weare, N.H., to condemn Souter’s 200-year-old home so that it can be replaced with the "Lost Liberty Hotel." As the Internet presentation put it, the hotel would include a "Just Desserts Café." Souter claims he has lived there since he was 11 years old. Thousands of property owners have equally touching explanations as to why their property should not be taken. To facilitate a successful condemnation would require a zoning change in Weare. Proponents admit it is merely a publicity campaign to get five judges to pay attention to the 5th Amendment rights they voted away and that it is unlikely to happen. The court wasted no time in refusing to reconsider its eminent domain ruling.

If eminent domain takings were not so serious, the Souter issue could be funny. As it is, it is about as funny as current gasoline prices.

Eminent domain was once limited in application to taking private property for a genuine public need. Now it favors business. The need is not so apparent nor resulting benefits guaranteed. The court ruling has opened up a can of worms, and the worms are crawling over the nation. Larger businesses are gobbling up smaller ones with governmental help.

The procedure has gotten vicious. In New London, Conn., a lady and her neighbors narrowly lost their eminent domain fight in the Supreme Court. The city is charging her rent for living in her own house during the court battle.

In 1994, the GOP’s Contract with America touched upon the abuse of environmental law that reduced the value of private property by placing environmental restrictions on it. The restrictions made property values plummet in some cases.

The commonality between the new eminent domain game and environmental law enforcement abuse is that property of financial value is taken from rightful owners with the government’s consent. Admittedly, there are instances when obtaining property with eminent domain makes sense. But in all cases, owners should be justly compensated. To do otherwise is stealing.

The ripple effect of the Supreme Court ruling is touching many states. Some have decided not to use eminent domain in this manner. Others have jumped at the chance. It is widely used in Missouri. In one particularly interesting case, a community granted eminent domain to a developer who announced he would buy out homes. However, the company did not have financing—no money to buy out the properties. City government had failed to protect the people. The developer knew that the financing was shaky, and the end result is that lives have been overturned by a misused eminent domain policy.

Is there anyone who thinks eminent domain couldn’t hurt the river industry? There is a plan in place (and has been for years) to eliminate river related businesses from the Mississippi River in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. They seem to have no concern about area businesses that rely on water transportation. What about lost jobs and economic benefits to the region?

In Dubuque there is a plan already underway to eliminate river industries around the Ice Harbor so that some businesses can be replaced by those believed (by some) to be more desirable. We’re told that a few owners have been advised that they cannot expand or remodel, which is necessary for them to survive. In other cases, riverfront leases are being withheld or the cost is being raised so high it makes continued operation virtually impossible.

The government that we believed was once for the people is no longer totally for the people. Big brother knows what is best for us, and he is wasting no time putting his plans in place. If ever there was a time for Congress to restore the eminent domain laws to their original purpose, it is now.

The government is laying the groundwork for changing lives in a way with which we disagree. If we think the selection of Supreme Court judges is not critical, we’re brain dead.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)