HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0663.015 2002-2004 CRC Op-eds and Letters to the Editor
The Need for Eminent Domain
c-:
Letters to the Editor
cx~ ~ Wall Street Journal
E
December 22, 1998
Your recent article attacking local governments' use of their power of eminent
" ~ domain ("Condemnation Is Used to Hand One Business Property of
c C.;~ Another," front page, Dec. 2J failed to give your readers any sense otwhy
C' the Framers of the Constitution carefully preserved the power and why even
the most conservative members of the Supreme Court have been reluctant
to unduly tie government's hand in exercising eminent domain.
crcgDc.»munrtyngNS u;g Local governments rely heavily on eminent domain to achieve their land use
planning objectives. It allows communities to acquire land necessary for
schools, roads, parks and urban renewal projects. It also allows communities
to preserve historic sites and purchase conservation easements to protect
open space, habitat, scenic views and farmland. Even more importantly,
eminent domain protects taxpayers from being held hostage by what
economists calf "holdouts." Without it, property owners could extort windfall
profits from the taxpayers when they happen to hold key property necessary
to complete a proposed road, park or project. Alternatively, they could stop
community initiatives by refusing to sell.
Communities seeking jobs and economic growth also encounter holdout
problems. Corporations attempting to bring jobs into a community frequently
find it impossible to assemble the land necessary for a proposed facility.
When such holdouts threaten desperately needed jobs, a community may
decide to help the corporation through use of eminent domain. It is not at all
a "stretch" of community authority to take property in order to enhance
economic well-being. Indeed, this is a quintessential example of community
action on behalf of the public interest. The const ihrtional guarantee of "just
compensation" ensures that the holdouts are compensated for their property
loss.
Advocates of extreme theories of property rights have long clamored for the
government to use eminent domain and pay compensation whenever it regu
lates permissible land uses- !t is ironic that these same advocates. (Gideon
Kanner, who is quoted in your article. is a notable example) are now
attacking communities for using this critical power.
Judges should not use anachronistic notions of absolute property rights to
thwart critical land use planning, economic growth, jobs and the communities'
best interests.
DOUGLAS KENDALL Comm. No. ~D~//3~---.--I-S~.
Ref. To:hrerre~t~ (lf1,Y?~i~~
Ref. Uate A_ u~,a ~~4