Why Eminent Domain Had To Be Reformed

Filed in National by on November 12, 2009

Hopefully we all remember the fight that Ed Osbourne fought for several years to prevent his business (an incredible auto repair shop) from being taken through eminent domain.  The issue was that an extremely shitty Supreme Court decision had ruled that it was legal to seize property (with compensation) through eminent domain in order to hand it off to another party for economic development.  The court case was Kelo v. City of New London.

The unfortunate plaintiff, Susette Kelo, had her property taken from her in order for Pfizer to expand operations in New London, CT.  The Wall Street Journal delivers the punchline:

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.

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.

As much as I am loathe to agree with the WSJ on anything, they are right on this.  It is exactly this sort of corporate whoring of government that must stop.  It is useful to point out that across the street from Osbourne Automotive are 20 some beautiful townhomes.  The last time I was over there, many were still unsold and Buccini-Pollin had to auction off 1/3 of their condos last month.

Thank you, Governor Markell, for your role in fixing eminent domain in Delaware.  h/t Roy Munson

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. John Manifold says:

    As usual, the WSJ is wrong. Connecticut was wrong to grab Ms. Kelo’s land, but because it was bad public policy, not because of some mythical “property right” in the US Constitution.

    The Fifth Amendment says, “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    In the Kelo case, the non-insane members of the US Supreme Court held that what constitutes a “public use” is a matter of state law, up to the voters and legislators of the various states.

  2. Letty Loose Lips says:

    Did you hear the one about the Buccini townhouses sliding backward into the Christina?….the whole thing is build on fill dirt. You gotta love Wilmington’s thug L & I inspectors papering the town w/Mr. Bud’s fifty dollar instant tickets while the ‘big boys’, using taxpayer money, get away with “whatever” to the applause of the administration and council.

  3. cassandra_m says:

    LG, the Christina Landing Townhouses were sold out by this developer. In fact, the majority of these houses sold before they were built and even then changed hands a few times. Talk about your bubble. The townhouses over at Justison Landing are largely empty, tho.

  4. Letty Loose Lips says:

    Cassandra surely you are aware of the developers ploy of getting friends and family to buy, then sell…..it’s a gimmick to make it look as though the project is sold out or about to be.

    Wilmington is projecting a 10 M shortfall next year….this year the city developer’s benevolent society gave the BPGroup 15 M. Who’s on first?

  5. liberalgeek says:

    I don’t see the townhomes on the market, but there were lockboxes on about half of them the last time I was over there.

  6. cassandra_m says:

    It wouldn’t surprise me to find that Christina Landing is a pocket of foreclosure activity — given the churn on these before they were occupyable the prices went through the roof. And there were plenty of people vying to get a home there, so I’d bet there were plenty of not sustainable mortgages.

  7. liberalgeek says:

    It is also possible that the lockboxes serve some other purpose (like for short-term rentals).

  8. Operation Mindcrime says:

    Don’t forget the County’s involvement in this fiasco. IF council were held accountable for their votes (they aren’t thanks to the UDF), most wouldn’t achieve their retirement benefits.

    And what about the gentleman in Bear that is about to loose his property to a shopping center. Yes, Mr. Osbourne’s business is saved, but it looks like the legislation didn’t go far enough.