Further Distortion of the Constitution

Next big test of power to seize property?
The US Supreme Court will examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for not seizing private property.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from the local planning board.

But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to reach an understanding with a private company that had been selected by Port Chester officials to control all construction inside the renewal zone.

The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.

Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain.

Lawyers for Didden took the matter to federal court. They even went to the FBI - all to no avail. Now they are asking the US Supreme Court to examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for refraining to seize private property in an urban renewal zone.

Property rights activists are hoping that a majority of the justices view Didden's case as an opportunity to clarify a portion of the high court's controversial decision in its last big eminent domain case, Kelo v. New London. In that June 2005 opinion, the court ruled 5-to-4 that local governments could seize private property and turn it over to a private developer when the action was part of an economic development project of benefit to the public.

Rebellion in the states

The decision sparked a national backlash. Since then, 34 states passed laws restricting the use of eminent domain for private development. New York is not among them.

The US Constitution forbids government officials from taking the property of one person and giving it to another. But if the overall purpose is a public benefit, such as economic transformation or urban renewal, transfers of private property to a private developer are permissible, the high court has said.

At issue in the Didden case is whether a developer selected to carry out an urban renewal project in the public interest can use the government's eminent domain power in a way that maximizes the developer's profit.

Read the rest here.