High court has a chance to revisit and clarify Kelo
“… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
— Fifth Amendment
Ever since the Supreme Court’s odd ruling in Kelo v. New London the nation has been trying to get a grip on just when and how government may use eminent domain to take private property.
In Nevada the voters in 2008 approved PISTOL — People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land — and in November they rejected an attempt to modify it.
Around the country, different jurisdictions have handled the question differently.
On Friday the Supreme Court will decide whether to revisit the thorny issue, though the oddsmakers say it is unlikely.
The case at hand is called Tuck-It-Away v. New York State Urban Development Corp. It involves efforts by Columbia University, a private college, to use eminent domain to acquire land to expand its research facilities. One of the coveted pieces of property is a self-storage business owned by Nick Sprayregen.
The Institute for Justice has filed an amicus on his behalf.
Lower courts have sided with Columbia, determining the land in question is blighted, though Sprayregen points out that most of the land surrounding his property is already owned by Columbia, which has let it stand vacant and allowed to run down.
In arguing for the court to take the case, IJ attorneys argue, “This case presents an opportunity for this Court to clarify the definition of a ‘pretextual taking’ under the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Kelo v. City of New London … this Court ruled that ‘economic development’ is a public purpose justifying the use of eminent domain. But the Court also emphasized that government may not ‘take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit.’ … In his oncurrence, Justice Kennedy noted that a taking characterized by ‘impermissible favoritism’ would be unconstitutional if the government cannot prove that it served a non-pretextual public purpose. … More generally, although public purpose is defined broadly, this ‘Court’s cases have repeatedly stated that one person’s property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid.’”
An IJ press release quotes Sprayregen as saying, “The surrounding vacant properties — most of which Columbia owns — have been allowed to deteriorate, and without any recognition of the hypocrisy involved, the state now points to those properties as justifying the declaration of our neighborhood and my business as ‘blighted’ so it may hand all of this land over to Columbia University.”
By the way, the land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood is vacant. After New London took her home to give to pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, the company abandoned its plans.
