NOVEMBER 11, 2009
The
Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent
years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the
name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette
Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices
intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical
giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in
New London, Connecticut.
The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the
futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her
neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to
bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable"
elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant,
without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.
That's
especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the
development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy
called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens
insisted that "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." So much for that.
Kelo's
silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane
government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their
own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which
represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits
and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in
their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher
standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.
If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that
economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be
the kind to create sustainable growth.