Editorial: Property rights get swift kick from court

Friday, June 24, 2005 | 9:13 a.m.

On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court, in a controversial 5-4 decision, ruled that local governments have the power to seize someone's home or business to make way for commercial development, such as shopping centers and business parks. At one time, eminent domain was reserved by government for only "public use," such as to build roads or public schools, from which we all stand to benefit.

But increasingly in recent years, local governments have expanded the use of eminent domain to tear down homes and businesses to make way for private developers -- even when the homes and businesses were not in blighted areas. These local governments say that such use of eminent domain is legitimate, arguing that the creation of new jobs and more tax revenue benefits all residents, thereby constituting a "public use." Still, this broadened definition of what eminent domain could be used for seems more about enriching influential companies than about creating a "public use" for the greater good. Nevertheless, the majority of the Supreme Court found that local and state governments, not the courts, should have the final word on what constitutes "public use."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in her dissenting opinion, noted that powerful business interests could benefit from the court's hands-off approach to eminent domain. "As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more," she wrote. The court's ruling is a green light for politically connected companies, especially those that make sizable campaign contributions, to become even more aggressive in convincing local government officials to take away someone's home or business -- all for the sake of money.

archive