State, federal lawmakers moving to curb eminent domain powers: the Supreme Court's June ruling that local governments can use their power of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development has unleashed a legislative backlash from state and federal lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat.

• Author: Berger, Barrie Tabin

The U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, has sparked considerable controversy around the country over local governments' use of the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes. On one side of the debate are local leaders and redevelopment agencies, which maintain that the power of eminent domain is a seldom used but important and effective economic development tool. On the other side are private property advocacy groups, which argue that the Supreme Court's decision allows governments to threaten the rights of property owners across the country. This article examines the many state and federal legislative proposals aimed at limiting the power granted local governments by the Supreme Court in the Kelo case.

THE CASE AND THE RULING

The City of New London approved a development plan that was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas." The city's development agent purchased property from willing sellers and sought to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. The city maintained that the revitalization of an economically distressed area was a valid reason under the "public use" provision of the Fifth Amendment to condemn private property. A group of New London home owners believed otherwise, and filed a lawsuit against the city claiming that the taking of their properties violated the public use requirement in the Fifth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of New London. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court's majority, "those who govern the city were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference. The city has carefully formulated an economic plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue." While stating that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution has always prohibited a taking whose sole purpose is to transfer one person's private property to another person without conferring a public benefit, the Supreme Court found that New London's economic development plan unquestionably...