On June 23, 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 5–4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the term “eminent domain” became the topic of conversation throughout the United States.

Eminent domain is the power by which the government may take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.

Of course, our government, national, states, county and city, does sometimes need to seize private property. For hundreds of years, indeed, it has done so through this power.

If a city or state needs a new road, school, park or even sewage plant, the local government should not face impossible obstacles in taking private land and paying the property’s owners a reasonable price for their land. While it’s always preferable for the owners to make voluntary sales, the government needs this power to build the necessary public facilities, and this power is granted to the government by the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut City to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use.

This is a dangerous interpretation of the “takings clause” in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution that allows the government to seize property for public use, with just compensation.

The U.S. House of Representatives responded by widely criticizing the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court that allowed eminent domain authority to be used to obtain land for tax revenue-generating commercial purposes.

That decision, said the House’s third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, “dealt a blow to the rights of property owners across the country.”

The House, by a 376-38 margin, passed a bill that would withhold for two years, all federal economic development funds from states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced similar legislation. “Governments should not be able to bulldoze a person’s home or business to benefit other individuals,” said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas.

Even liberals warned that it could make it easier to tear down poor neighborhoods. “We don’t need you on this one,” Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said to those arguing that eminent domain can lead to beneficial urban renewal projects. “We need you to respect the right of those minorities and those poor people to hold on to what is their own.”

We all know the wheels of legislation grind at glacial speed and it will probably be quite some time before some other cast winds it way to the Supreme Court in order that this decision can be reversed or changed.

So what can you as an individual citizen do to reduce his tsunami that seems to be heading into many communities around the nation?

In the recent run-up for the County Commissioner’s seat, if my memory serves me correctly, I do not remember one comment or question concerning the restriction of eminent domain being asked of the five candidates.

We should certainly want to know how they react, and vote, if there was an attempt to apply this controversial ruling, in Fayette County.

Corporations, especially the large banks, can also take a stand on this issue.

One such bank, the Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T), announced on Jan. 25 that it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.

On behalf of its board of directors, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison explained, “The idea that a citizen’s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact, it’s just plain wrong.”

Mr. Allison added, “One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won’t help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership.”

CCEO Allison and his board of directors have shown great financial courage by taking this action, as it can certainly impact on the bank’s bottom line. They have demonstrated that they will not be accomplices of the majority of the Supremes in this decision.

Our own SunTrust Bank, headquartered right here in Atlanta, as well as other financial institutions, should follow this excellent demonstration of courage.

Those of us that bank at SunTrust or any other bank should ask their local branch manager about taking such action.

John A. Milani, Sr.
Fayetteville, Ga.

login to post comments