| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels Private
property owners got some good news from Michigan last month when the
state’s supreme court struck down a county’s use of the eminent
domain power in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, overturning over two
decade’s worth of jurisprudence that essentially gave the government
carte blanche to seize private property for almost any reason.
While a welcome change, private property advocates still have a
ways to go before eminent domain will be safe from government
over-reaching and corruption. And,
unfortunately, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor may be
standing in the way. Eminent
domain allows a government to take privately-owned land for public use
in exchange for just compensation without having to negotiate or compete
with other buyers. Without
such a power it would be practically impossible for any state or federal
government to build significant public projects, such as a road system,
utilities, airports, and the like, as any one private owner whose
property is needed could simply refuse to budge.
Unfortunately,
the more common use for eminent domain recently has been for the
government to use the power to benefit private business, not the public.
In County of Wayne, the private property being taken was
going to be turned over to private developers for the creation of a
business and technology park near an airport.
Instead of those developers having to persuade property owners to
sell for a price the developers could afford, they used the government
to condemn the property, buy it, and give it to the developers with no
strings attached. It’s
corporate welfare, plain and simple. And
for the last twenty-odd years, that corporate welfare was considered a
“public use.” Originally, in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of
Detroit, Michigan’s supreme court decided that it was a “public
use” for the government to take land from one private group and give
it to another if doing so would improve the local economy.
In Poletown, General Motors convinced Detroit to seize a
residential neighborhood and give it to the car company so it could
build an assembly plant there, creating new jobs in a city where
unemployment had reached “calamitous proportions.”
The court upheld the taking, and Poletown became the
benchmark for permissive takings in law textbooks everywhere. The
government in County of Wayne relied on Poletown, arguing
that the creation of the business and technology park would bring in new
jobs, new tax revenue, and attract businesses to invest in the area.
But Michigan’s supreme court finally realized its error and
struck down such redistribution as not being “public use” at all,
identifying three ways a taking could be classified as a “public
use” if the government ultimately gives the seized property to another
private entity. First, it is permissible to give seized land to a
private corporation if doing so “involved ‘a public necessity of the
kind otherwise impracticable,’” such as to build railroads,
highways, and canals. Second,
it is permissible to give seized land to a private party if that party
“remains accountable to the public in its use of that property”—in
other words, the government retains some measure of control over the way
the property is being used by the private entity.
Finally, it is a “public use” when the land is seized
originally “on the basis of ‘facts of independent public
significance.’” This
means that the government can seize property with a present condition
that hurts the public, such as blighted housing or polluted bogs, and
then later sell or give it to private owners for use and development.
Obviously, the technology park in County of Wayne was none
of these. Since
the Poletown decision was borrowed by many states to define the
scope of their own eminent domain powers, County of Wayne may
prompt a rethinking of state-based eminent domain.
That is a significant victory for private property rights. However,
federal eminent domain use is another matter.
While that power is also confined by the requirement of “public
use,” the U.S. Supreme Court has been somewhat broader in its
allowance of economic benefit to qualify.
Not long after Poletown, the Court ruled in Hawaii
Housing Authority v. Midkiff that it was permissible for the
government to break up large private estates that left most land in the
hands of few parties. Justice
O’Connor wrote for the majority that because “the unique way titles
were held in Hawaii skewed the land market, exercise of the power of
eminent domain was justified.” Admittedly, the facts in the case were a bit extreme:
Of all the land in Hawaii at the time, 49 percent was owned by the
federal government while 47 percent was in the hands of a mere 72
private owners. Such was
the result of the feudal style of land ownership first instituted by
Polynesian settlers, and repeated efforts to diversify land ownership
had failed. However, in the
end the Court and Justice O’Connor borrowed the rationale of Poletown
to uphold the takings, namely that there would be “public use” in
improving the economy by forcing the divestment of private estates.
Perhaps County of Wayne will begin a rollback of the use of eminent domain to truly public uses. Now that Poletown has been scrapped, other states may follow suit. The U.S. Supreme Court is not so easily beholden, however, and Justice O’Connor’s ruling in Midkiff, as well as her tendency to not want to rock the boat, may make the cause of property rights face more challenges in the future. |
||
