WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. June 26, 2005: A reader goes behind the hysteria behind the Supreme Court eminent domain decision of last week, citing the Supreme Court reasoning behind the landmark decision, and quotes from the decision, which follow this comment:
John,
How many who have condemned the recent eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court have even read the court's decision in KELO v. NEW LONDON. All one needs to do is to read the description of New London's dire economic circumstances to understand why a handful of property owners should not hinder the economic development and revitalization that benefits the greater community.
(quoted sections are from the Supreme Court's decision in KELO v. NEW LONDON.)
"Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a distressed municipality. In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of the City and had employed over 1,500 people. In 1998, the City ' s unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920. These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization."
Anyone who has visited New London in the past 5-10 years can attest to the vacant businesses, boarded-up buildings and general decline of a once thriving seaport community. The project in question is proposed to consist of the following:
"Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a small urban village that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian riverwalk will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses."
"The NLDC (New London Development Corporation) intended the development plan to capitalize on the arrival of the Pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract. In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London. The plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park."
This is a comprehensive plan to revitalize an area designated by the state as a distressed municipality. This is not a strip-mall development.
Petitioner Susette Kelo position is that "She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view." While I am also quick to advocate the defense of private property rights, there is a point where the greater good of the community overrides the property interests of the individual. Do we not have important zoning regulations that dictate how an individual may use their property?
Ultimately the decision of when and how to use eminent domain falls upon our elected officials in the city's administration and not on private developers. If a municipal project that involves private development is not at arms-length, then an investigation and prosecution should ensue. Our representatives have the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that these projects involve a "public purpose".
Eminent domain is a well established principle of law eminating from the English common law system. Many citizens understand the necessity of condeming private property and compensating the owner for the purpose of public projects such as roads, utilities and environmental protection. However, to simply reject a public project that requires the exercise of eminent domain because it involves private development interests could be a case of a cutting off your nose to spite your face.
- Michael
