Real Angry Over Real Estate
Why a recent Supreme Court ruling has lots of homeowners hot under the collar
Lawyers for Susette Kelo say that's because the ruling represents a philosophical leap from the traditional projects associated with "public use," such as highways or schools. Dana Berliner, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group representing Kelo, says local governments have expanded their use of eminent domain in recent years to make way for big-box retailers and new housing complexes to boost tax revenue and create jobs. Between 1998 and 2003, Berliner says, there were some 10,000 examples of threatened or actual use of eminent domain for what she claims is essentially private commercial development. Jeff Finkle, head of the International Economic Development Council, counters that eminent domain is sometimes essential as a last resort. "If you don't have [the] ability to block holdouts, people that would have the ability to prevent cities from acquiring land and developing new types of opportunities, you're going to leave those urban distressed places exactly [as] they were," he says, citing New York City's redevelopment of Times Square as an "eminent domain" success story.
In Norwood, Ohio, Carl and Joy Gamble are the last of 65 homeowners holding on to their property, which the city said was deteriorating and could be seized through eminent domain. They have spent two years fighting their case in court and are awaiting a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court on their appeal of an earlier court ruling that they had to sell for $280,000. "We're not there for the money," says Carl. "We bought [the house], we want it, and we want to keep it."
advertisement
