Congress Hits Back at the Supreme Court over its Controversial Eminent Domain Decision by Kenneth R. Harney
The U.S. Supreme Court's controversial June 23 decision on local governments' powers to seize homes has produced a massive backlash in Congress. Before heading home for the July 4 recess, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution expressing its "grave disapproval" of the Court's decision in Kelo vs. City of New London. The bipartisan vote was 365 to 33. The House also passed an amendment with real teeth -- a prohibition against the use of federal funds in connection with any real estate project where a local government used its eminent domain seizure powers to transfer property from one private owner to another under the banner of "economic development." The amendment, which passed by a vote of 231-189, was attached to an appropriations bill and now goes to the Senate. The amendment specified federal funds administered by HUD, the Dept. of Transportation and the Treasury. The Congressional moves came on a rising tide of outrage by homeowners and other private property owners across the country. Their anger was aimed at the Court's 5-4 ruling that sanctioned the seizure of 15 privately owned properties in New London, Conn. for transfer to private developers of a hotel, condominiums, conference center and office buildings planned for a downtown waterfront redevelopment site. The homes scheduled for condemnation are all well-maintained and not located in a blighted neighborhood. The owners do not consider themselves "holdouts;" they refuse to sell at any price. The Court ruled that it cannot "second guess" local governments' decisions on what constitutes a permissible "public use" of properties seized under eminent domain powers. Even if a seizure is solely motivated by a desire by a city to increase tax revenues or jobs, said the Court, the local government has the power to define that as a "public purpose" under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment requires "just compensation" whenever a government seizes private property for "public use." Over the past six decades the Supreme Court has steadily widened the meaning of "public use" -- such as roads, public buildings and parks -- to include "public purposes." In an extreme example of how far "public purposes" may extend, the attorney representing New London said eminent domain permits the city to seize a Motel 6 and replace it with a Ritz Carlton, solely because the latter is likely to produce higher tax revenues and jobs. In the New London case, the Court sanctioned the seizures of private homes even though the city itself will not own or use any of the redeveloped properties, and despite the fact that there are serious question about the economic feasibility of the office building and hotel projects. In other words, the homeowners may have their houses bulldozed, but not replaced with the commercial, higher revenue-generating buildings the redevelopment plan contemplates. What is unusual about the House vote to deny federal funds is the coalition of odd political bedfellows it brought together. For example, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she was "outraged" by the Court's decision. "It's the most un-American thing that can be done." She was joined by House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is normally on the opposite side of virtually any issue from Waters. "The Supreme Court voted last week," said DeLay, "to undo private property rights and to empower governments to kick people out of their homes and give them to someone else because they feel like it. No court that denies property rights will long respect and recognize other basic human rights." Even the most liberal member of the House, Vermont's self-described socialist independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, said "I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision ... . I believe that the result will be that working families and poor people will see their property turned over to corporate interests and wealthy developers." Though the funding ban -- which would essentially eliminate all federal financial assistance for a redevelopment project such as New London's -- passed the House, it faces an uncertain future in the Senate when Congress returns. Cities and state governmental lobbies, which strongly supported the Kelo decision, were caught off guard by the eruption in the House. But they are certain to be better organized for battle in the Senate. One of the arguments likely to be used against the legislation in Senate debate was previewed by House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D_CA), who voted against the amendment: "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court," she said, "you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution." | 
