In a legal sense, this decision makes sense. Read the decision, read the cases it references. Economic improvement is a reasonable public use of land.
Of course, the smart thing would be for the owners to just sell to the developers anyway. I will almost guarantee that the developers will pay more for the land directly than if the local government invokes eminent domain.
Of course, any decision can be justified in any way by any court by referencing cases which, they argue, are binding to the case. Of course, there are dozens of other cases that could be cited to lead one to believe that the minority opinion "makes sense" from a common law or Constitutional perspective.
If economic concerns govern who can own property and who can't, it has potentially scary results. For example, lets say you own 10 acres in Napa, California, on which you plant maybe 80 acres of Gamay grapes. Let's say that Constellation Brands wants to start a winery on that land and uproot your vines and instead plant Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. According to this ruling, the Government can seize your property and let the corporation use it for its commercial venture which it believes will be more profitable, and hence more profitable in regard to tax revenues. Because there is no land of that size available (normally) in Napa, you have to leave the town, lest you wish to rent a house on apartment on no acreage.
How about a church? Certainly they aren't profitable, and a McDonalds would yeild far more tax revenues on the land. What if that is part of the Government's economic revitalization plan for the area? Should the Government be able to raze a church to squeeze some money out of the land?
1. I'm not quite sure that any decision can be justified by citing past cases. Let's be careful how we use absolute language here (I'm probably guilty of absolutel language myself, but it doesn't get us anywhere in the discussion).
2. So...why not sell your land to Constellation Brands? If you hold the last remaining property available like yours, then the company will most likely pay well above general market value for the land. But the case at issue will let them skip that step and seize your land through eminent domain, right? Well, first, central to the current case is that New London, CT has a detailed and thorough economic development plan to outline why they believe the purchase of this land is necessary. Second, I stand by the proposition that any commercial venture would rather leave the local government out of their plans entirely. If nothing else, it will save the company on legal costs. All you have to do is approach the company and make them an offer. They'll take it, you'll make a nice chunk of change, and then retire in the Bahamas.
As they say, if a lawyer can't find a case, any case, on which to base such a cause of action (we are talking E.D. claims here, so there isn't isolated statutory analysis involved, he is either 1) lazy, 2) incompetent, or 3) both lazy and incompetent. What you deem absolutism I deem realism. That isn't to say the argument will be particularly earth-shatteringly obvious and universally accepted, but that isn't necessary for law, nor the courts--particularly the Supreme Court.
Of course, you added something to the hypothetical that I did not--the assumption that the Napa landowner is concerned about money. This isn't a concern, necessarily, of the parties involved in the SC case, nor will it be involved in the countless of such cases that will stem from the decision. Sure, having Constellation Brands breathing down your need and salivating at the thought of owning your land will make you wealthy, but if you own 10 acres in Napa you, by definition, are probably already wealthy, and even if you are not, if you wanted to be you'd merely sell to someone without the concern of E.D. seizure.
I disagree on one point, based on experience. When a business has the capacity to secure anything by going through the Government, it is not easier--that I will concede--but because that is an option, that is a bargaining tool that business can use to pressure a purchase at their terms, not the terms of the seller. Let's say CB offers the Napa landowner $10 million dollars for the property. Does the possibility that the government may seize the property and settle for what the state considers "fair market value" (in CA that tends to be 80 cents on the dollar nowadays) make acceptance more or less likley? I'd say logic dictates that you'd be able to get more out of the business if CB had absolutely no option other than offering more money if it wanted to get the property.
67 Replies
11403 Views