Eminent domain: picking up the dropped ball

A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city of New London, Conn., could condemn the home of Susette Kelo in order to give her property to private developers. The rationale of the majority appeared to be that the power of eminent domain can be exercised in the name of any project that can be painted as benefitting the public, even if that supposed benefit is simply replacing a low-dollar property with one that will generate much juicier property taxes.

No one argues that major infrastructure projects that necessarily benefit the entire population, like road construction, ought to be scotched because of the objections of a few property owners. It's regretable, but there's no other reasonable way to accomplish such huge projects - giving veto power to a single citizen is not workable. Likewise, there are genuinely blighted, and even dangerous buildings that are rightly condemned by city inspectors. It is not unreasonable to require the property owners of eyesores and hazards to keep their property in a state of minimal repair.

But when the government is given the power to pick and choose among property owners, ejecting low-income homeowners and renters in order to make room for a developer to erect luxury condos, the power of eminent domain is no longer a reasonable, regretable tool of extremity. The Court, a year ago, sent us into dangerous territory, so it's good to read USA Today's retrospective on the developments since then.

The Court actually suggested to governments that they might wish to legislate limits to the power of eminent domain, and many have done exactly that. The federal government has, for a change, led the way - conservatives and liberals finding equal (but quite different) reasons to be outraged at the Kelo decision.

As welcome as these developments are, the same legislative bodies that now reject the privatized use of eminent domain might well sing a different tune as their political and financial fortunes vary. Something as fundamental as a person's right not to have property confiscated by the state except in the most extraordinary circumstances should not be entrusted to the whims of a patchwork of lawmakers. If the Court won't enshrine it as precedent, then I suggest Congress get over its flag-burning fetish and propose an amendment to the Constitution that would acutally mean something.