Field of Schemes: Supremes mull eminent domain

February 23, 2005

Supremes mull eminent domain

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., a landmark case challenging governments' seizure of private land by eminen domain to make way for private developments. (Eminent domain is generally limited to projects for the "public good," but courts have allowed local officials to interpret this to include economic development of "blighted" areas.) If published comments are any indication, the justices seemed pretty tough on the plaintiffs - at one point Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined weirdly that "more than tax revenue was at stake, the town had gone down and down [economically]" - but trying to guess verdicts based on case comments is a fool's game, or at least one I'm not qualified to play. A ruling is expected in June.

The one thing that's clear is that a ruling against eminent domain use for private projects would have a huge impact on stadium projects, including the Nets proposal in Brooklyn (which would evict an entire block of homes) and the planned Washington Nationals stadium, which would wipe out a number of small businesses. One land-use attorney told the Washington Post that the "ultimate impact [for D.C.] could be that condemning private property for baseball doesn't meet the Supreme Court's ruling on what are the standards of public use. ... That could grind to a halt the entire stadium construction and development."

COMMENTS

why is that a weird opinion? she & kennedy were asking, since the court's already established that eliminating blight is a public good, whether relieving an economic depression headed likely headed for blight might not also be a public good. the justices seem to be debating what's a reasonable test for determining what's in the public good and her question doesn't mean she's trying to carve out an overbroad category. anyway it looks like they'll decide against new london developers.
Posted by: yves at February 23, 2005 12:29 PM

It seems weird to me to make a distinction between "tax revenue" on the one hand and economic deterioration on the other - either way, it's defining "public good" as increased property values. I haven't seen the full transcript, though, so maybe Ginsburg's statement made more sense in context.
Posted by: Neil at February 23, 2005 12:51 PM