The Supreme Court's decision last week to allow the government
to seize private homes without the owners' consent may inspire
yawns among Manhattan residents who are unperturbed by the
prospect of it affecting them. Here in Staten Island, however,
the decision dredged up painful memories for residents who have
already lost their homes when the city used the principle of
eminent domain.
Richmond County, a bedroom community, is the fastest growing
county in the state, and while there remain large tracts of
undeveloped land to build on, homeowners need to be vigilant, now
more than ever. The Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of
Kelo v. New London, has overridden private ownership for the good
of the state, and residents need to keep a very careful eye on
how City Hall and Albany define "public use."
Last Friday, the Staten Island Advance interviewed Robert
Stanley, who grew up in the last house on a dead-end street in
Fort Wadsworth. He told the reporter, Yoav Gonen, that the house
was his mother's first, "a dream home surrounded by a white
picket fence." In the early 1960s, the Stanleys were sent
eminent-domain papers by the city telling them their home would
be bulldozed to make way for the Verrazano-Narrows toll plaza.
"My mother refused to move," Mr. Stanley told the
Advance. "They had to literally pull her off the property.
She wouldn't go. She was crying."
Well, the area homes were leveled, the neighborhood disappeared,
and the bridge was built.
The Verrazano was just one of several projects that forced
homeowners to vacate under the eminent-domain power wielded by
the city and state. The Staten Island Expressway forced the
demolition of 400 buildings and, according to the Advance
article, displaced 3,500 people along the route.
According to the last census, more than 63% of the Island
consists of privately owned homes, including mine, so how will
this decision affect us? My council member, Michael McMahon,
Democrat of North Shore, is usually a very reasonable man but was
quoted as saying he wholeheartedly agreed with the high court's
decision, though landowners must be "justly
compensated."
In contrast, the council minority leader, James Oddo, Republican
of Staten Island, found the court decision, "scary, scary,
stuff." Borough President James Molinaro, a Conservative,
also condemned the ruling, saying, "One of the dearest,
greatest thing about this country is the right to own property.
Nobody can come in and invade that property, or take it away. And
we just lost a piece of that today."
It must also be noted that the 5-4 court decision fell along
ideological lines, with the conservatives, Justices Rehnquist,
Scalia, and Thomas, voting in the minority. Even the
unpredictable Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, viewing the decision
as likely to benefit only the rich and powerful. In her dissent,
she criticized the majority for handing "disproportionate
influence and power" to the most wealthy and influential.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,"
she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing
any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall,
or any farm with a factory."
What the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo is essentially a rewrite of
the Fifth Amendment, which declares that private property can be
seized by the government only when it is for public use and with
just compensation. The high court's decision now allows for
seizure for private development if it is thought the public will
benefit by the increased taxation of the new developed property.
In other words, greedy governments can condemn any property to
boost tax revenues.
Justice Kennedy, in his affirming opinion, acknowledged that the
states have the right to set their own restrictions on the
principle of eminent domain, which seems to me to be a lame cop
out and a prime example of judiciary fence-straddling.
Even though Staten Island's registered Democrats outnumber
registered Republicans, the Island generally votes
conservatively, and it may well be because of the perception that
conservative politicians value individual rights more than
government control of their lives. Homeowners who live in
low-rise homes on increasingly valuable prime waterfront lots
will be voting for politicians who will respect their property
rights. We will also be looking very carefully at state races, in
particular at next year's governor's race, for candidates who
will champion legislation restricting eminent domain to
legitimate public uses, such as bridges, highways, and projects
that involve public safety.
This decision only confirms the urgent need for more judges who
will respect our constitutional rights rather than allow them to
be trampled by greedy state and local governments.