10.0 EDSR 02-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kelo v. New London: What does it mean going forward? Tom Grundhocfer The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo a New Condon, rendered this past summer, precipitated axore media coverage, public reaction, and policy debate than any federal court deusion in recent memory. Ironically, the rul- ing did little-if arrything-to change existing municipal eminent domain law az either federal or state levels. The power to use eminent domain m help facilitate economic development and redevelopment has been explicitly authorized by Min- nesota statutes and state federal court decisions for years. However, in light of the emotional reaction to the decision, it is' important to review implications for Minnesota cities going forward. What Kelo did The Kelo decision upheld longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent per- mitting the ^se of eminent domain to further econorruc developmen[.The coax[ ruled drat acquiring property to promote economic development, qualified as a "public use" under the U.S. Constitution.The court reasoned that the acquisition was executed pur- suant m acarefully considered devel- opment plan. Citing prior Supreme Coact decisions, the court restated its "longstanding policy" of giving defer- ence to legislative judgment regarding what public needs justify the use of errunent domain. According to the mling, the City of New London's determination that the area to be developed was suffi- dently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. In essence, the court found there was nn principled way to distinguish economic development from other public purpose recognized by previous courts. While undoubtedly the decision has prompted vigorous and emotional public dialogue, and has resulted in proposed legislative modifications at the federal and start Icvel, it cannot seriously be argued that the ruling gives new eminent domain powers ro local government. What Kelo did not do As indicated, Kelo did not in any way expand the authority of Minnesota cities to acquire property. Foe many years state legislafion has explicitly authorized the use of eminent domain for economic development, redevel- opment, housing, and other public revitalization efforts. In addition, the Minnesota appellate courts have con- sistently recognized the authority of municipalities to use eminent domain to acquire property for these purposes. Contrary ro what has been reported in media accounts, th deci- sion does not empower cities to indiscriminately seize residential and business properties. State law requires an exhaustive process, payment of fair compensaROn, and judicial review before any property can be acquired through eminent domain. Why there should be thoughtful response to Kelo Despite the emotional reaction to the decision, the fact that it does not cre- ate new law should give state leg- i,da[ors reason to be thoughtful and cautious in fashioning a response. Minnesota has a long history of supporting public efforts to promote economic development and neigh- borhood revitalization. Accordingly, efforts at eaxinent domain reform should thoughtfully consider flit effects that reform will have on local goveenmen[s'initiaUVes to help alle- viate and improve blighted areas, authority to promote affordable hous- ing and senior housing opportunities, ability [o clean up polluted land, and ability to revitalize distces'sed areas- particularly in [he core cities and inner-ring suburbs. State policymakers need to be careful about effectively giving a sin- gle property owner the ability [o stop important public purpose projects. The League believes local elected offi- cials are in flit best position to ntakc decisions about what is in the best interests of [heir own conxmuni[ies. A legislative response that strips local governments of their cxisfing powers [o improve communities will inevitably result in [hose same decisions having to be made on a case-by-case basis at the state Icvel. October 26, 2005 LMC Cities Bulletin Page 5