Backlash at the State Level
For those opposed to eminent domain, the silver lining in all of this has been the subsequent backlash at the grassroots level.
According
to the Institute for Justice, which represented Kelo, 43 states have
since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain,
giving property owners greater security in their homes. Prior to the
Kelo decision, only eight states specifically prohibited the use of
eminent domain for economic development, except to eliminate blight.
As
Scott Bullock, Kelo's co-counsel in the case, told the Hartford
Courant, "This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use
massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and
abuse eminent domain."
Pfizer to Leave the City
In a surprising turn of events, last November, Pfizer, the anchor of
the New London redevelopment plan, told city officials that it would
close its large research center as a cost-cutting measure. The company
plans to transfer most of the 1,400 people working there to its
facility in nearby Groton, Conn.
For many former homeowners in New London, Pfizer's departure is a bad
ending to a story that never should have been written. Yet, according
to a statement provided by a Pfizer spokeswoman, Liz Power, the company
says that it had no stake in the outcome of the Kelo case or any
interest in the development of the land that was acquired via eminent
domain.
According to a report by The New York Times, the Pfizer complex is
currently assessed at $220 million, said Robert M. Pero, who is now the
mayor of New London. The company pays tax on 20 percent of that value
and the state pays an additional 40 percent, Pero told The Times. This
will end in 2011, around the time that Pfizer, currently the city's
biggest taxpayer, plans to complete its withdrawal.
Where Are We Now?
Although the tide has turned somewhat against eminent domain at the
state level, numerous courts continue to interpret the high court's
decision differently. For example, in December 2009, a New York State
appellate court blocked the state from seizing private properties for
the $6.3 billion expansion of Columbia University. In a 3-to-2 ruling,
the court said that the state misused eminent domain to help Columbia
assemble the land that it needs.
On the flip side, in a recent 6-to-1 decision by the New York State
Court of Appeals, the court ruled that Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards, a
commercial development firm, can use eminent domain to secure land to
build new housing and a basketball arena for the Nets. Also in New
York, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has used
eminent domain to make way for the new headquarters of The New York
Times.
According to CBS' 60 Minutes, The Times teamed up with a major real
estate developer, convincing New York State to use eminent domain to
force property owners out by declaring the block "blighted." New York
State's Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the newspaper's new
headquarters would eliminate the blight. And even though a private
entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, the court said
that improving the block would benefit the public.
In Ohio, the City of Lakewood tried to use eminent domain to make way
for expensive condominiums. The city tried to label the residential
area as "blighted." However, that effort failed. Lakewood residents
rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the
affected neighborhood, and voted the mayor who spearheaded this action
out of office.
This controversial issue is not likely to be resolved anytime soon.
Although many states are more discriminate now in their use of eminent
domain, the Institute for Justice says that it has documented more than
10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give
it to another in just the last five years.
Wherever this debate ends up, one thing is certain: eminent domain and
the definition of "public use" will continue to evolve on a
case-by-case basis, and will likely remain a contentious and litigious
issue for years to come - and something that corporate executives may
need to consider when acquiring property.
