The Ridgewood development proposal is in the news as one woman does not want to give up a private road which will provide one of four necessary accesses to the subdivision. Some in the comments section are asking whether the condemnation for the benefit of a private developer is allowed by the 5th Amendment, and for better or worse, the US Supreme Court has answered “yea.”
Kelo vs. the City of New London basically defines “public benefit” broadly, as incorporated that which is deemed by the applicable government body to be of economic benefit to the entire community – whether the public in general will actually use the property. Therefor, yes, a local government may force a purchase of the property under rules of eminent domain – for a private developer. It’s been done for decades to create malls and such. It’s pretty much local government’s call, with very little court scrutiny.
More later.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 6, 2010 at 11:05 am
Anonymous
That was a heart-wrenching story about land that has been in the family for 90 years and could be taken away. I almost forgot we were talking about some tiny dirt road and not a family home. Cry me a river.
September 6, 2010 at 11:52 am
Plain Jane
The lady in question wants to subdivide her own acreage and it was her family who did the big subdivision on the west side of Walnut Drive between Northridge and Ridgewood.
September 6, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Bruce Ross
Something of a different situation here, as the road will presumably be public once it’s built.
There’s almost always a development reason — read, some person’s profit motive — driving road widenings that lead to eminent domain. But a road is still a public use. Quite unlike taking the land because a redevelopment agency wants to help someone build a mall on it.
September 6, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Anonymous
Malls would never get built otherwise Bruce.
September 6, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Bruce – I learned about this the hard way when I lived in Bellingham during the late 1980s in opposition to the Bellis Faire mega-Mall, built just outside Bellingham to the north. It was intended to draw in the Canadian shoppers who came across the border to shop in various waves depending on the relative strength of the currencies. It nearly gutted Bellingham’s retail base, though it seems to have recovered due to the growth spurred on by the World Expo in Vancouver around the same time which caused the Northwest to be “discovered” by equity refugees and the like.
Anyway, I opposed the project for that reason and others and I remember some farmers whose land had been in their families for several generations lost it to the project. They sued and lost to a lower court Kelo type ruling. The Supreme Court decision didn’t surprise me, though it was disheartening to see the liberal justices ruling for the developers, ironically with a few of the conservatives justices in opposition, the irony being diminished considering the larger property rights issues. “Conservatives” have long wanted to abandon the common law principle that real property is actually owned only by the sovereign. Kelo is actually much more a holdover of feudalism rather than a product of socialism.
In any case, it’s now formal. “Public use” means any use by which the government intends to benefit the general welfare of the people. We don’t own the land. We have leaseholds. The Constution guarantees only the monetary value of the interest.
September 6, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Eric Kirk
This is moviedad’s post erroneously placed in a thread below.
Two things: Eminent Domain (E.d), and “..she had previously tried to sub-divide her property.”
In reading the article in the Sunday Times Standard regarding the woman who owns the property with the road, it’s clear that it is who you know, and not how good your case might be.
That one line about “tried” to sub-divide, shows that she wasn’t able to do that. Five acres was probably not considered large enough. If only she had tried to put thousands of buildings on just a little bit more.
I’m sorry, but this is BS. There’s a county official saying that eminent domain would be used if other methods didn’t work out. What the…? So now the ugly truth about E.d and its ties to corrupt politics rears its head. Remember a few years ago the courts decided that putting a WalMart on someone’s property who didn’t want to sell, in a neighborhood which didn’t want the store; constituted a “Public Need.” so they stole (legally) the person’s property and put up a WalMart, and now the developers are off to their next conquest and the other stores in the town are probably all gone.
I hope there is resistance. Can someone from out of the area help? How dare they!
I usually stay out of Eureka/Arcata politics, being an out-of-towner, an all. But, this is bigger than just Eureka. this is the state being the goon for developers and stealing from private citizens. I’m sorry, but if she doesn’t want to sell, that’s the end of it. Find another spot.
If we are going to say there is something called: “The right to private property.” then it has to apply to the small individual land owner; just as it does to the billionaire developers.
September 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Anonymous
Oh come on! All the developer has to do is form a non-profit and say it’s a road to “fundraisers”.
September 6, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Anonymous
I don’t get it. Ridgwood is being proposed by a nonprofit?
September 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Matt
BTW, the New London, CT eminent domain takeover on behalf of Pfizer didn’t work out so well in the long run…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html
September 7, 2010 at 7:21 am
moviedad
“erroneously” Sorry, I have no sense of decorum. I actually posted before you put this thread up. I am very happy that you did so. This is an important subject. one of the few times when we can actually see the collusion between our “benevolent dictatorship” and the business interests, overriding an individual citizen, who “erroneously” believes they still have rights under the constitution.
September 7, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Arcatawitch
I wonder how the Native Americans feel about eminent domain… hmmm. It sure didn’t work too well for them.
September 8, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Eric Kirk
Actually, AW, it has on occasion benefited Native Americans. The federal government actually did have to condemn some of the land in order to create reservations.
September 8, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Eric Kirk
and the business interests, overriding an individual citizen, who “erroneously” believes they still have rights under the constitution.
The Constitution very clearly upholds the doctrine of eminent domain.
September 8, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Eric Kirk
Matt – interesting follow-up to the story. Almost missed it. Thanks.