« Ind. Gov't. - Indiana government earns C+ | Main | Ind. Courts - Uncoupling judges' pay raises from legislators' »

Monday, January 31, 2005

Ind. Law - More on taking private property for private development

This ILB entry from Sunday, Jan. 23rd talks about about HB 1063, authored by Rep. David Wolkins of Winona Lake, which would prohibit the taking of private property by eminent domain for commercial purposes.

It also points out that the United States Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on this same issue in the current term. Although three related cases are scheduled, the closest case here is Kelo v. New London, scheduled for argument on Feb. 23, 2005. (See the earlier entry for links.)

Two items of news today:

First, HB 1063 is scheduled to be heard today by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, upon adjournment, in the North Balcony of the House Chambers.

Second, the NY Times yesterday published a lengthy story on this issue, particularly as it relates to the cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, titled "There Goes the Old Neighborhood, to Revitalization." Some quotes:

The issue that binds them - whether a municipality can take someone's property through eminent domain and hand it over to developers in the name of economic development - will be aired on Feb. 22, when lawyers for Mr. Dery, Ms. Kelo and other New London holdouts have their day before the United States Supreme Court.

The issue is particularly fraught in the Northeast, where two trends have intersected to sharpen the struggle between the deeply held values of individual property rights and the public benefits of bringing aging neighborhoods back to life. One is the scarcity of suburban land available for development, as local communities and state governments organize to prevent sprawl and developers turn their eyes to the cities.

The other is the need for the region's aging small towns and cities to rebuild their tax bases, lest they sink deeper into poverty and abandonment.

"With eminent domain we can now get a large tract of land and bring back to the urban centers the retail, the shopping centers, the office parks," said Thomas Londregan, New London's city attorney. "Or do we have to wait for our urban areas to deteriorate and decay into blight before we get the blessing to try to help ourselves? I hope not."

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have generally supported Mr. Londregan's argument that economic growth amounts to an overriding public benefit. But now an odd alliance of conservative and libertarian property rights campaigners and civil rights advocates are hoping that the Supreme Court's decision to hear the New London case could signal a shift. The case is an appeal by the New London residents of a unanimous decision last year by s the Connecticut Supreme Court upholding the city's condemnation rights.

Oddly, the Times article does not mention the evidence of a shift against public benefit-type (i.e. "Poletown" takings) -- for instance a Michigan Supreme Court decision last summer (reversing Poletown) and an earlier Illinois Supreme Court decision, both of which strike down such takings. More can be found in this ILB entry from 7/31/04, and this one from 8/2/04.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 31, 2005 07:48 AM
Posted to Indiana Law