« The Model Talks Back | Main | 14 Years »
June 29, 2005
Kelo Kicks Back
I haven't said much about the recent Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court ruling on imminent domain. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to render a strong opinion, but in general I'm opposed to it since, as a property owner, I'm somewhat keen on property rights.
But anyway, this is just too ironic to be true, but it apparently is. An investor named Logan Clements is pressing the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, to use its newfound powers of imminent domain to comdemn the property at 34 Cilley Hill Rd to make way for a new hotel that he wants to build. What's the catch? That property is the home of Justice David Souter, who voted in favor of these new imminent domain powers.
Of course, this is all contrived. Clements is not in the hotel or real estate business. He's CEO of a small media company, but if the city council (Board of Selectmen in this case) is like-minded and votes to condemn, we'll get to watch the interesting spectacle of Souter (or more likely, his lawyers) arguing against the precedent set in his ruling.
In truth, though, I doubt this latest ruling would actually apply. While I haven't read the ruling, I read enough commentary to see that this ruling is supposedly restricted to those areas that are in ecomonic decline and in need of revitalization. There's enough other law and case law (think "economic development zone" and "free enterprize zone" projects and funding) that there should be a reasonably good understanding as to what is meant here.
Still, it would be a delicious irony.
Politics by Dan at June 29, 2005 08:54 AM
Comments
Actually the ruling is not restricted to blighted.
The guy going after the Supreme Court guys house is classic and a bit more direct than my idea.
Mine was a bit more subtle but equally valid. the supreme court decision said that basically a private venture could go for Iminent Domain if the private venture would make the local govt. more money IE. increase the tax base over the current owners.
My idea is to file Iminent Domain on some big churches around town. I figure if I put up a fireworks stand I've increased the revenue tax already, since the church doesn't pay any taxes to speak of. Using the logic of the Supreme Court this a perfectly valid use of the Iminent Domain ruling.
Posted by: satyr at June 29, 2005 02:13 PM
re: "not restricted to blighted..."
Like I said, I haven't done a real reading of the ruling, but I already suspected (as have others) that this is very likely open to abuse.
All it will take is an investor and a city council who both want to make a point, and something like this will be making a fast track to the Supreme Court for a clarification or reversal of the Kelo ruling.
Of course if I was going to do it... heh, I'd opt for a hotel or shopping mall on the grounds where the Supreme Court currently stands, though I don't know if the ruling could be stretched to apply to federal property rather than just private property. Alternatively, the Smithsonian, which is actually owned by a private institution, if I recall correctly. After all, we all know how badly D.C. needs the funds.
Posted by: Dan at June 29, 2005 02:29 PM