July 7, 2005

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court has drawn fire from property rights activists and others concerned about the potential impacts of the ruling on private landowners, including agricultural landowners. On June 23, 2005, in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments have the right to seize property under eminent domain for private redevelopment if they pay just compensation to the owners. The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by seven property owners in New London, CT against the city for attempting to seize their property to make way for a development and revitalization project leased and built by private developers. Historically, eminent domain has been used primarily for public projects, such as highways or airports.

The New London landowners argued that the city’s seizure would violate the Constitution’s "public use" restriction, maintaining that using eminent domain for private development is unconstitutional. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids governments from taking private property for "public use without just compensation." City officials claimed that the proposed private development serves the public purpose of generating economic growth. Split 5-4, the court concluded that a "public use" includes not only traditional projects, such as bridge and highway construction, but also land redistribution for the "public purpose" of creating jobs and increasing taxes and other revenues.

The ruling concerns conservation groups, who question whether the decision might allow communities to take private agricultural land and open space through eminent domain for development projects. "With so much farmland on the urban edge and near cities still in steep decline, ex-urban towns could be tempted by this ruling to make farmland available for subdivisions," said American Farmland Trust President Ralph Grossi.

Critics of the ruling are already at work on legislation to hinder the use of eminent domain takings for economic development projects. On June 30, the House voted 231 to 189 to approve a measure that would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to seize private property to make way for profit-generating projects, such as hotels or malls. The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. Key members of the House and Senate have vowed to take even broader steps soon, and various states may also take action to impose stricter standards on eminent domain takings.

"Farmers concerned about the potential use of eminent domain in their areas should attend local government meetings and get involved in the relevant planning process," said Bob Wagner, AFT’s managing director for field programs.