Monday, June 27, 2005
Eminent Domain Decision
The Supreme Court has decided that New London, Connecticut can use eminent domain to take the property of private land owners to create a zone of businesses and high-rent condominiums for the purpose of improving the economic condition of the city. It's a controversial decision. Many cities are strapped for cash. Mayors and city councils look desperately for ways of increasing tax revenue. Especially in a city with a large fraction of its residents unemployed or underemployed, there is a need for such city services as additional police, homeless shelters, make-work jobs, extra funding for hospital emergency services (where poor or unemployed and uninsured people obtain health care), and others.
The purpose of the eminent domain procedure in New London was to take property from owners who pay low taxes and give it to owners who will pay high taxes. How can we blame a city for such action? Cities and other local government agencies are limited in the ways in which they can raise money. This limit was made more severe after the famous "tax revolt" of the 1980's that reduced the revenue a city could obtain from property taxes. The taking of property in New London is a consequence of the restrictions that we, the people, have placed on the ability of cities to raise revenue through taxation.
We may not like the implications of the New London decision. Our homes are subject to being taken to be used for a more lucrative purpose. But, this is something we have brought on ourselves.
The purpose of the eminent domain procedure in New London was to take property from owners who pay low taxes and give it to owners who will pay high taxes. How can we blame a city for such action? Cities and other local government agencies are limited in the ways in which they can raise money. This limit was made more severe after the famous "tax revolt" of the 1980's that reduced the revenue a city could obtain from property taxes. The taking of property in New London is a consequence of the restrictions that we, the people, have placed on the ability of cities to raise revenue through taxation.
We may not like the implications of the New London decision. Our homes are subject to being taken to be used for a more lucrative purpose. But, this is something we have brought on ourselves.
