Supreme Court Can Shield Property Owners From Eminent Domain Abuse
The Supreme Court may revisit eminent domain rules to protect property rights in light of a controversial case in Utica, New York
Utica, New York, Eminent Domain, Supreme Court, Property Rights, Kelo v. City of New London
Utica: So, there’s this situation with Bryan Bowers and his buddy Mike Licata. They wanted to set up a medical office right across from a new hospital in downtown Utica. But guess what? The Oneida County Industrial Development Agency decided to take their property for a parking lot for a competing business next door. Can you believe that?
This whole thing got the green light from a state appeals court last February. It’s a real head-scratcher, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for this kind of stuff back in 2005 with the Kelo case. That ruling basically said it was okay to use eminent domain to hand over property from one private owner to another if it was for “economic development.”
Now, Bowers is hoping the Supreme Court will take another look at that decision. The Institute for Justice, which is backing him, wants the justices to set some clear limits on what the government can do. They’re even saying Kelo was a mistake from the start.
According to the Fifth Amendment, the government can only take private property if they pay “just compensation” and it’s for “public use.” But in New York, the courts have stretched that definition so much that it seems like almost anything can count as a public benefit.
In this case, the court claimed that taking Bowers’ property was for the public good because it would help with parking and traffic. Bowers isn’t buying it, though. He thinks that reasoning is pretty shaky.
Back in the Kelo case, Justice John Paul Stevens said the city’s plan was all about creating jobs and revitalizing the area. But in Bowers’ situation, it looks like the agency just decided a parking lot was a better idea than his medical office.
Stevens pointed out that New London couldn’t just take property under the guise of a public purpose if it was really just to benefit a private interest. But in Bowers’ case, it’s pretty clear that the main winner here is a private business that wants to limit competition.
Bowers himself said, “Taking our property wasn’t for the public; it was to benefit our competitors.”
Interestingly, four current justices, including Thomas, have shown they might want to limit or even overturn Kelo. Given how blatant this land grab in Utica seems, Bowers’ case could be the perfect chance for them to do just that.