Eminent domain up for debate
Published 1:00 am, Sunday, February 19, 2006
Two competing bills are facing lawmakers this session, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year to allow government to seize private property for economic development.
"The driving force behind the legislation is the fear - real or perceived - by homeowners that their home will be taken by the government," said Rep. Lewis Wallace , D-Danbury, the co-chairman of the legislature's Planning and Development Committee , which held a public hearing on the matter Wednesday.
"People invest their life in their homes. It should be a rare and extreme instance when government takes a home and gives it to someone else to increase tax revenue."
Although the controversy began in Connecticut in the case of Kelo v. New London, the issue created a stir across the country. Five states passed laws restricting condemnation of homes for economic development, while 37 states are considering such proposals this legislative session.
The House bill in Connecticut's legislature prohibits taking private property for commercial development. Both the House and Senate bills call for increasing the compensation given to landowners whose land is condemned, and a two-thirds majority of a city council or board of selectmen to approve a condemnation.
"The system works well now. This issue has gotten headlines it doesn't deserve," said First Selectman Rudy Marconi of Ridgefield, which just fought a major eminent domain battle over the undeveloped Bennett's Pond property.
"This was the first time we ever used it that I'm aware of," Marconi said. "It's not a pleasant experience, but I don't think the state should take that right away from us."
Marconi and other municipal officials insist the ability to condemn property for economic development is essential for the progress of cities and towns. Others argue that eminent domain should be used only for public purposes, such as schools and roads, and never for commercial development.
Ridgefield condemned 613 acres of property last year. Of that, 458 acres will be used for green space, while 155 acres will be used for economic development, Marconi said. The town paid $12 million to compensate the owners.
Condemnation should be the last resort for any purpose, even public projects, Brookfield First Selectman Jerry Murphy said.
"The fact that people have lived in their homes for years should count for something," Murphy said. "That doesn't mean you should pay two or three times more for a project to route pipes around a home every time, but all alternatives (to seizure) should be looked at."
Brookfield has had some property seized by the state for the extension of Route 7. The state took the Fairfield Resources gravel and sandstone pit and some small industrial areas, Murphy said, and the former owners have gone to court for a better price. Murphy didn't know the amount the companies were paid for the property.
Republican lawmakers thought both bills could be stronger, and they said the test should be whether the new laws would prohibit a situation similar to what happened in New London last year.
"Very few issues are this easy to understand. My constituents have shown feelings of outrage, surprise, and some are scared," said Sen. John McKinney , a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown. "Few homes will be taken by eminent domain, but anyone's home can be taken by eminent domain."
Alabama, Delaware, Ohio and Texas all passed laws restricting the seizure of property for development, while Michigan passed a proposed state constitutional amendment to be voted on this November. Like Connecticut's proposals, these laws made exceptions for blight. However, most did not define blight.
House Minority Leader Robert Ward , R-North Branford, told the committee the state bills should define blight as a building that poses a clear public health and public safety risk.
The proposals are far too restrictive for cities and towns that already use the power of eminent domain very sparingly, said Ron Thomas , the manager of state and federal relations for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. The toughest provision is requiring a super majority approval to condemn property, he said.
Bristol City Councilman Craig Minor said he could support allowing a town referendum before a project is approved but insisted municipalities must have the right of eminent domain.
"The notion that people will wake up tomorrow and find their home has been condemned is nonsense," he said to the committee. "There is a whole process this would have to go through."
The entire issue should be up to voters, said Susan Kneip , president of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayers . She wants a constitutional amendment considered in the fall.
"It is not the bricks and mortar but the heart and soul of families which government is trampling on when they take possession of private property from one and give to another," Kneip, a former East Hartford mayor, said to the committee.
"Redevelopment is the precursor to eminent domain. It's big business. It enriches developers, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants and those special interests aligned with government officials who pass laws and undermine our rights."
Contact Fred Lucas
or at (203) 731-3358.