High court to weigh eminent domain

Post-Gazetter ^ | Feb. 21, 2005 | Michael McGough

[FairOpinion]

When the U.S. Supreme Court returns to the bench tomorrow, it will hear arguments in a case that could lead to new rules on when government can seize private property from its owner and turn it over to another party in hopes of creating jobs and increasing tax revenue -- a common "public use" far removed from the highways and bridges that were the traditional purpose of eminent domain.

In the audience will be a man for whom this is a landmark case in more ways than one. Bill Von Winkle owns three buildings in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, Conn., which the city and a development agency have sought to acquire by eminent domain for an elaborate redevelopment plan anchored by a Pfizer pharmaceutical company research center.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether the redevelopment of Fort Trumbull, which the city believes will invigorate the economy of New London, is a "public use" that overrides the owners' right to hold on to their land if they choose.

For Scott G. Bullock, the lawyer for the New London property owners, the answer is obvious: "This is a clear abuse of eminent domain. If they can take these properties, any neighborhood is up for grabs."

(The Bush administration has declined to take sides on the matter, which given the federal government's own past use of eminent domain is being interpreted as a victory for the property owners.)

[nutmeg]

Land grab ping

[Rabble]

"I'll find the report that I read on their dealings and post a link to it."

Thanks, I would love to know more on this.

[antiRepublicrat]

The Bush administration has declined to take sides on the matter

You'd think so given Bush's past involvement in eminent domain abuse, stealing land to make room for the Rangers stadium.

[antiRepublicrat]

I told him fine get the portion appraised and we will talk. He refused and said we don't have to do anything but tell you what we want and willing to pay.

How about an easement instead of outright purchase?

[FairOpinion]

You should have read the whole sentence:

"The Bush administration has declined to take sides on the matter, which given the federal government's own past use of eminent domain is being interpreted as a victory for the property owners.)

[antiRepublicrat]

You should have read the whole sentence:

I did. I think Bush is staying out of it because he loses either way, not because he supports either. If he supports the state, then conservatives will justifiably maul him. If he supports the property owners, then his own land grab will make the headlines, with justifiable charges of hypocrisy all over.

[Koblenz]

Hopefully this will end the abuse of eminent domain. If a county wants to build a new police station, road, fire department, or other municipal building, then I think eminent domain could be justified. I think it can also be justified for certain private businesses such as utilities that need a right-of-way: this is a grayer area, but especially if the wires and pipes will be buried, there may be justification. But allowing private businesses to replace others just isn't right.

Costco is one of the largest abusers of eminent domain laws. This is how Costco acquires a lot of property.