Supreme Court Hears Arguments for Connecticut Eminent Domain Case
By Emily Beaver
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 -An economy motel could be razed to build an upscale Ritz Carlton hotel if the Supreme Court upholds the state of Connecticut’s ruling that property can be seized for economic development, lawyer Scott Bullock argued before the Supreme Court Tuesday.
“Can you take a Motel 6 and give [the land] to a fancier hotel?” Bullock asked during arguments. “Their answer is yes.”
The Supreme Court heard arguments for Kelo vs. City of New London, a case that questions whether the government can seize private property for economic development projects like office complexes and hotels.
“This case is about whether there are any limits on the government’s use of eminent domain,” Bullock said.
Bullock, a lawyer from Washington’s Institute for Justice, argued the case brought by New London resident Susette Kelo.
Since January 2000, Kelo’s home and the homes of her neighbors have been threatened by a project to build upscale housing, office space, a hotel and a marina.
Kelo and seven of her neighbors refused to sell their homes to New London Development Corp., the private, non-profit corporation developing the Fort Trumbull project. New London city council and approved the project and allowed the development corporation to use eminent domain, the government’s power to seize private land for “public use.”
Eminent domain, granted by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, may be used to clear land in order to build a highway or rail system intended to serve the public. In 1954, the Berman v. Parker case ruled that eminent domain could be used to clear “blight” or economically-depressed neighborhoods.
Lawyers for the New London residents’ have argued that the “trickle-down” economic benefits of development projects do not justify taking private property.
In March 2004, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that eminent domain may be used to produce economic benefits.
Wesley W. Horton, a lawyer representing the city of New London, argued on Tuesday that New London is an economically depressed city with little space available for economic development.
“There’s five to six square miles of town to build in,” Horton said. “I think if a person does not have a job and needs a job.that’s just as important as the train running on time or getting rid of blight.”
Bullock failed to acknowledge New London’s economically-depressed condition in his argument, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
Eminent domain can be used to take land only if there is a public benefit, Justice Stephen Breyer said, but “there almost always is some public benefit attached to economic development.”
The Fifth Amendment states that private property should not be taken for public use without “just compensation.” Justice Antonin Scalia asked Horton how a development corporation could properly compensate a homeowner who only wants to keep their home.
“You’re paying for it, but you’re paying someone who doesn’t want to sell their property, who wants to live in the house she’s lived in her entire life. Does that count for nothing?” Scalia asked.
The Justices also questioned whether eminent domain could be used to transfer private property from one owner to another because the second would be able to generate more tax revenue, providing economic stimulus.
“You can’t take from A to give to B, if B pays more taxes-do you agree?” Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Horton.
“The city thinks, if we had a Ritz Carlton, we’d get more taxes,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said.
Not all neighborhoods are rich and produce a lot of tax revenue, Bullock said in his closing statement. Therefore, poor neighborhoods are more likely to be wiped-out by big earning corporations if eminent domain can be used to bolster tax revenue.
“You’re going to put poor neighborhoods in jeopardy if the court affirms this decision,” he said.
###
