Right Again

Eminent Domain is a threat.            It’s a rare thing to disagree with the United States Constitution, but this is one of those instances. Eminent Domain is a serious threat to personal property rights, and it might not be a bad idea to abolish it altogether.
Eminent Domain is the power the government has to expropriate a citizen’s private property for public use, with compensation but without the owner’s consent. The property is then either used by the government or delegated to a third party. Generally Eminent Domain is used to procure lands for things such as roads or public utilities. Eminent Domain isn’t necessarily limited to real estate, and it can be used to seize patents, trade secrets, contract rights or other goods. Court rulings and interpretations have broadened the power of Eminent Domain to allow property to be seized for the ‘public good’ such as economic development.    
The power of Eminent Domain is incredibly easy to abuse. The idea of ‘due compensation’ in the case of Eminent Domain is flawed. It is impossible to give someone the fair value of his or her asset in the case of Eminent Domain. Market Price is whatever price two parties arrive at without coercion. In cases of Eminent Domain there is always coercion. There can be no real negotiation, because the citizen can’t refuse whatever price is offered. The government gets to decide how much it is going to pay the citizen whose property is getting seized; there is no fairness, no true market value in that.    
Just in the past few years there have been some startling abuses of Eminent Domain across the country. An excellent example is what happened in New London Connecticut. The city of New London decided to seize the lands and homes of many citizens, and turn them over to a private sector developer on the grounds of economic development constituting public use. The people whose homes were seized sued the state, and rightfully so. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court where the city of New London won. This case was one of a large corporation using the local government to force people out of their homes. Once the case was resolved, the city of New London said that since the Supreme Court had upheld the seizure, that the displaced landowners owed the city back rent for the time they had spent on the land during the litigation.
Eminent Domain clearly favors the rich and well connected. The power of Eminent Domain is allowing one private citizen to use the government to seize the property of another citizen. Those most negatively affected by this are the poor. Any company or individual with the capital to develop land could make the same case that pharmaceutical giant Pfizer did in New London and clutch people’s homes and businesses in the name of economic development.
Luckily this case was an eye opener to many. Many states have since then passed legislation and amendments to their constitutions severely restricting such abuses of Eminent Domain. Columbia University is trying to use Eminent Domain to seize land to expand their campus.
Despite passing amendments, Eminent Domain is still a threat. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the Supreme Court said, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory”— and she’s right.