Property grab
WITH THIS week's eminent domain victory in the US Supreme Court, city officials in New London, Conn., prepare to demolish a modest riverfront neighborhood to make way for a hotel and office complex. New London stands to gain property tax revenue, but also a reputation as a city that cares more for commerce than for its residents.
Bostonians know something about the abuse of the Fifth Amendment, which gives government the authority to take property through eminent domain ''for public use." The West End story of the 1950s still evokes images of thoughtless government officials who allowed a colorful, close-knit neighborhood of modest homes to be leveled for the development of Charles River Park, an undistinguished high-rise complex catering to the wealthy. ''Remember The West End," is still a populist battle cry in Boston. New Londoners may soon rally to the cries of ''Remember Fort Trumbull," the targeted neighborhood overlooking Long Island Sound.
With a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize homes and businesses for private economic development. In doing so, the majority of the court stretched the definition of ''public use," which in eminent domain terms usually applies to the right of the government to seize homes for public works projects, schools, libraries, and the like. Now the court has given permission to many municipalities to take perfectly functional private homes and businesses so they can approve upscale private projects capable of paying higher property taxes.
Takings can be justified if the neighborhood is a slum that poses health and safety risks. Massachusetts law, for example, requires municipalities to prove that properties targeted for economic development are ''blighted open areas." As the Supreme Court made clear, states are still free to pass tough laws that restrict the kind of abuses seen in New London. This week's court decision should prompt many states to do exactly that. Absent such laws, the upper hand belongs to private developers whose interests lie mainly in creating commercial profit centers for themselves.
The usually subdued Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented from the New London decision passionately, and with cause. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," she wrote.
New London has been in decline for more than half a century. But efforts at revitalization should target both commercial and residential growth. New London officials tilted too far in favoring tax revenues over taxpaying residents. Far worse, the high court gave them the necessary boost.
