OK, I took a look at the court’s
opinion in Kelso, and the Supremes were NOT saying that a governing body can just randomly hand private property over from one individual to another just because the second individual was a council member’s cousin or whatever:
It is further argued that without a bright-line rule
nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's
property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will
put the property to a more productive use and thus pay
more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed
outside the confines of an integrated development
plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual
exercise of government power would certainly raise a
suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical
cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when
they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial
restriction on the concept of public use.
The written majority opinion then goes on to say:
We emphasize that nothing in our opinion
precludes any State from placing further restrictions
on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States
already impose .public use. requirements that are stricter
than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements
have been established as a matter of state constitutional
law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain
statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings
may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties
and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of
using eminent domain to promote economic development
are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This
Court's authority, however, extends only to determining
whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a
"public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment
to the Federal Constitution.
The development in question has the purpose of revitalizing and bringing jobs to a blighted urban area. The land will also be used to augment an existing state park and a Coast Guard Museum will be built on one of the parcels of land. The Supremes seemed to base their decision on the fact that the development would bring jobs into the area and that this constituted a “public good.” I think the hypothetical example of condemning a Motel 8 and replacing it with a Hyatt Regency would fail the court’s test of public good, since such a change would not serve to create an appreciable number of new jobs in the community, among other things. After all, if 100 people a night on average need a motel room in a given area, the same 3 maids will clean the rooms, the same one clerk would check people into their rooms etc., regardless if the place was a Motel 8 or some more swank outfit.
I agree that a Bush appointee would probably be more likely to have voted against this decision, but now that I have read it, the Court’s reasoning makes sense to me. I think Dean’s mistake was in joining the mass hysteria that has resulted from a failure to look at just what the Kelso ruling did and did NOT say.
(There, is that researched enough for you, Lookout?)