|
|
"I think that's giving government too much power," he said. "I disagree with that ruling. I'm just dumbfounded that this was even taken up by the Supreme Court."
Despite the court's ruling, Massengill and Nichols said they doubted Brookhaven or Monticello would ever see eminent domain laws used so forcefully here.
"It would be hard for me to see the town of Monticello ever using that power," Nichols said. "I believe in a municipality's right to grow, but not by trampling the common citizen's rights to property. That's why we have public domain laws."
The 5-4 ruling came as a defeat for residents in Connecticut whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex and recreation opportunities.
The residents had argued that cities have no right to take private land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads and schools, or to revitalize "blighted" areas.
The city, New London, claimed the eminent domain seizures fell under the cap of economic development. City officials have plans to use the property for a riverfront hotel, river walk, health club, offices, and a museum. A portion of the property, owned by the city, has already been turned into a city park.
The Fort Trumbull area of New London under dispute occupies 90 acres on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately-owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by a naval facility. Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
In past rulings, "public use" was employed to describe projects to benefit the general public, such as roads and schools. Governments are prohibited from seizing private property from one person to give to another.
Dissenting judges, however, said that is precisely what the court agreed to do Thursday when it ruled in favor of New London. Part of the property seized would be used to build office and research spaces for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc.
"Today the court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded ... in the process," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissenting opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate dissent, supported O'Connor's claims that the new ruling would make the Public Use Clause ineffectual.
"Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning," he wrote. "In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court's majority, said the court had long been moving toward more loosely interpreting the "public use" word usage.
"While the city is not planning to open the condemned land - at least not in its entirety - to use by the general public, this court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public," Stevens wrote. "Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"
He wrote that the residents' arguments that the city would not be using the land for the general benefit of the public is "supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized."
O'Connor argued that supporting New London would blur the lines between when governments should or should not use eminent domain.
"Where is the line between 'public' and 'private' property use?" she asks. "We give considerable deference to legislatures' determinations about what governmental activities will advantage the public. But were the political branches the sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff."
Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined Stevens in his opinion supporting New London.
The liberal judges were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote his own opinion, in rejecting the principle of individual property rights. Kennedy feared a small group of homeowners could block rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.
O'Connor argued that the residents had justifiable concerns in thwarting the eminent domain proceedings.
These "petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none are opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the (city's) proposed use for their confiscated property is not a 'public' one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment," she wrote.
Under the ruling, residents will still be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment.
