Posted by
Roxanna M. on Friday, December 04, 2009 10:30:43 AM
A few years back, the city of New London, Connecticut, allowed itself to be rolled. Pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, had its research and development headquarters there, and some private developers asked the city to take some land so they could build high-end condos and other "desirable" elements to enhance the Pfizer facility.
The Constitution provides for eminent domain, which means that the government can take private property for public purposes, provided that just compensation is given to the owner. The people in New London who were going to be evicted objected to the city's actions because the land was not going to be used for public purposes, it was just going to be transferred from one set of private owners to another.
In a flagrantly unconstitutional decision, the United States Supreme Court said that governments could take private property from one person and give to another if the latter could make better use of it than the former. Of course, the court was not so blunt, preferring to couch their disgraceful ruling in appropriate legalese, such as, "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." (John Paul Stevens)
With that ruling, people were evicted and the city began paying them off, tearing down structures, and bulldozing the land. $78 million and four years later, the property stands vacant. No high-end condos. No office buildings. No hotel. No job creation. No increased tax revenue. No "desirable" elements of any kind.
Why? Pfizer decided to close its R & D facility in New London.
In reaction to this ruling, 43 states have passed laws placing limits and safeguards on the use of eminent domain. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what New London offered.