Little is considered as sacred as the right to own
property. That right was undermined this week by the decision of the
Connecticut Supreme Court in favor of the New London Development Corp.
By a vote of 4-3, the court upheld the plans of the
nonprofit agency overseeing the ambitious FortTrumbull redevelopment project. The
decision clears the way for the agency to take the remaining homes of residents
who have lived there for years and even generations. Much of the land will be
developed for private use.
The court interpreted broadly the meaning of eminent domain, the power of the
government to seize property for the public good. The decision puts all
property owners on notice that government-backed developers with deep pockets
can take their land with no proof of public benefit.
This case, brought by seven property owners who refused to sell to the New
London Development Corp., should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
has not looked at eminent domain in this context for half a century.
At one time, the concept of taking land for the public good was clear-cut.
Everyone understood that the government could wrest property for roads, schools
and hospitals and to relieve blight. But the addition of economic development
as a rationale has muddied the criteria, leaving too much leeway for abuse of
government power.
New London's economic development
project was keyed to the expansion of Pfizer pharmaceuticals. The condemned
land on the ThamesRiver
is slated for a privately held hotel and conference center, marina and upscale
housing, which have yet to materialize. Pfizer and prospective developers, who
would lease the acreage for $1 a year, are likely to gain from the project. Whether
the entire city will also benefit is subject to speculation.
The three dissenters - Justice Peter T. Zarella,
Chief Justice William J. Sullivan and Justice Joette
Katz - are right in saying that the plan did not offer sufficient guarantees of
public benefit to warrant the extreme measure of taking private homes. As the
three point out, the proposed transfer of ownership of
the condemned land to private sources leaves any future public benefit under
the control of private interests.
Justice Zarella made a compelling case for a clear
and convincing standard and a higher level of proof of public benefit.
"The tremendous social costs of the takings ... are difficult to quantify
but nonetheless real," he wrote. "The fact that certain families have
lived in their homes for decades and wish to remain should not ... be summarily
dismissed as part of a cost-benefit analysis ... ."
Amen.