The U.S. Supreme Court’s central ruling in Suzette Kelo et al. v. City of New London has
created a firestorm of controversy and outrage in state legislatures and
among property owners across the nation since it was handed down last fall.
The court, in effect, endorsed what has become a dangerous trend wherein
governments, mostly municipalities, have invoked the doctrine of eminent
domain to condemn, then raze, and then sell private property to commercial
developers. Once reserved for public-works projects clearly in
the public interest, such as roads and sewers, eminent domain is now being
used to seize and then convert homes and businesses into more profitable
and taxable enterprises, such as strip malls and sports complexes. The 5-4 Kelo decision has, according to Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor, set a dangerous precedent. In her dissent, she wrote:
“Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a
Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping center, or any farm with a
factory.” Fortunately, a number of states have since taken
preemptive measures to thwart eminent-domain abuses by strictly limiting
its implementation. In turn, legislators in Illinois have proposed several statutory
remedies that address separate issues regarding powers of eminent domain.
Of those, one noteworthy proposal has emerged. In Illinois, as in other states, local governments
have been allowed to exercise their right of eminent domain with impunity,
by merely designating a home or business “blighted.” If the
proprietors disagree, it has hitherto been their legal responsibility to
prove otherwise in a court of law. As one can imagine, those living in an
area slated for “redevelopment” are rarely able to afford the
legal costs of fighting City Hall. Senate Bill 3086, which became law on May 3, seeks to
change that. In effect, the law now places that onus on local and county
governments rather than on property owners. As condemning authorities, they
“must demonstrate and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the property is blighted property.” The measure is a needed, if
modest, reform. Introduced by Sen. Susan Garrett, D-Lake Forest, it
cruised through the Senate on a 44-2 vote. “This bill will even the
playing field for the average homeowner and give them some legal
protections that [they] don’t have under current state law,”
said co-sponsor Sen. Dan Cronin, D-Elmhurst, after it passed the Senate.
“I know this is a controversial issue, but I’m proud to say
that this bill is supported by numerous interests and organizations
throughout the state and has bipartisan support in the Legislature. We need
to pass a solid eminent-domain bill in Illinois, and I’m convinced
this is that bill.” It’s unlikely that SB 3086 will curb
eminent-domain abuse in Illinois once and for all. Says Steven Anderson of
the Beltway-based Institute for Justice, “On the scale of reforms,
that barely registers.” Even so, on reaching the Illinois House, SB 3086 met
stiff resistance on the floor and in the lobby. House Speaker Mike Madigan
pledged initially only to study the measure, but eventually, on April 19,
he called it to a vote, and it promptly passed 86-6. Several special-interest groups condemned it. Roger
Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League, argued that the
bill simply increases the value of what local government must pay to get
rid of blight. In fact, what the bill does is increase the value of what a
local government must pay to trample its citizens’ Fifth Amendment
rights. The U.S. Constitution reads, “Nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” What is
just compensation for a woman whose home is taken from her so that a city
may convert her property into a parking garage for a state-sponsored
baseball stadium? What is just compensation for Bill Yarger and Alec Wade,
who were threatened with having their properties seized not because they
were a blight on the community but so Normal township could raze the
property and hand it over to a bank, which could then relocate from its
original location and make way for a Marriott? There is a conspicuous consensus between wealthy
interests and local governments on this issue. People are being shaken out
of their homes by their own governments to make way for commercial
development. But Anderson points out: “We know that development
occurs every day without eminent domain. Development occurs as a result of
private negotiation, not government interference.” Nevertheless, private negotiations are taking place
between corporate interests and city planners without the consent of the
governed — and until the General Assembly passes meaningful reforms
well beyond SB 3086, they are complicit in this behavior.
This article appears in May 18-24, 2006.
