There was a big and justifiable bruhaha
about the recent Supreme Court holding that the City of New London,
Connecticut was legally able to condemn and buy the homes of Susette
Kelo and her neighbors for the purpose of creating a new shopping
development.
The new shopping development would ostensibly create additional jobs and additional tax revenue for New London. The Court found 5 to 4 that the “taking” was legal because it meets the Constitutional requirement of public use. More jobs and more taxes are sufficient to justify eminent domain.
Four justices dissented, arguing that
the only justification for eminent domain was a clear public purposes
such as transportation, hospital, utilities, military or to end an
oligopoly. Property taking was otherwise only justified if the
property was a blight and removal was in the public good. With a few
exceptions.
Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent and added the specific limitation to the meaning of public use: the connection between the eminent domain seizure and the public use must be “obvious, simple, and (have a) direct relation.”
When we consider the incredible number of modifications and variations on the concept of public use, over two centuries as well as all the harm done, I favor: (1) everyone who can read, read this decision and (2) we develop more restrictive terms than even Justice Thomas prescribes for using eminent domain.