This land’s not your land
Posted June 28th, 2005 by rancor
Last week the Supreme Court reached a decision in Kelo v. New London concerning eminent domain (ab)use. The case involved 19 homeowners who refused to hand over their homes to the city of New London, CT for private development featuring offices, a hotel, and a “pedestrian ‘riverwalk’ along the Thames River.” The case could have far-reaching and devasting implications for many neighborhoods and has been closely watched by many in the New York area. In her dissenting opinion, Justice O’Connor stated that:
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more….”
“Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.”
The problem of course is just what contitutes an “upgrade.” Arguably any property whatsoever is up for grabs as long as someone with money comes along and says they can do something “better” with it. The most important issue at stake — one which the Connecticut homeowners based much of their argument on — was the definition of “public use.” Historically, emiment domain cases have usually involved the seizure of private land for public use, such as railroads and hospitals. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Stevens transformed the meaning of “use” into “purpose,” which effectively allows seizure of land for private development by private corporations. This begs the question of who knows what is best for you and your neighborhood, town or city.
Closer to home, a disturbing story is playing out on East 3rd St. The owners of a 15-apartment, rent-stabilized building are attempting to evict all the tenants so they can have the entire building to themselves. The owners — a married couple with one child — claim they will convert the building into a 5-bedroom, 6-bathroom, 11,600 square-foot apartment.
Landlords have the right to “recover” rent-stabilized apartments for personal use, but the tenants facing eviction suspect that the building will be converted to condos or resold at market rate once everyone’s out. As noted in the NY Times:
“The size of the space that somebody claims they intend to live in must pass what lawyers call the ‘giggle test’ — the notion that the claim is believable and will not cause a judge to start to giggle. The idea that someone would take 15 units with 60 rooms as a primary residence is absurd.”
The case is currently playing out in the courts; a ruling for the landlords would give landlords and speculators yet another tool to use against tenants. How long ’til the bubble bursts?
Image at top by Eric Drooker.
