Happy New Year!

Welp, here we are – another day older and deeper in debt at the dawn of a bright shiny spankin’-new year.

A hopefully optimistic section now – two of the biggest governmental overreaches we have now are the guv’s seizing your assets on the flimsy pretext that it might be the fruits of drug trafficking and forcing you to Napoleonically prove it ain’t (civil asset forfeiture), and them deciding they have some other purpose for your land better than what you want to do with it and forcing you to sell (eminent domain.) We’ve discussed the former a few times, and a few states are finally taking some baby steps, but eminent domain is landing in front of high courts now and maybe there is some relief in sight.

The Supreme Court opened the door to such abuse with its widely reviled 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which blessed the use of eminent domain to promote economic development by transferring property from one private owner to another.

Just because the Supremes decided something does NOT mean they did so correctly. I know Roe v. Wade proponents may insist that is so as they whine, but you always have a two word response to whether the Court is ALWAYS right: “Dred Scott”. In Kelo the court decided the city could better use a parking lot than whatever the land owner wanted to do, and essentially allowed the city to confiscate private land. Now, we have a different case:

After the Mohawk Valley Health System announced plans for a new hospital in downtown Utica, New York, Bryan Bowers, a local developer, saw a business opportunity. He and his partner contracted to buy the former Rome Plumbing and Heating Supply building at 411 Columbia Street, across from Wynn Hospital, intending to offer medical office space.

Unfortunately, a different developing group (cardio0logists, no less) wanted to use that building as a parking garage – and sued to stop the sale. Oh, and the office space would have competed with THEIR medical office space building across the road. So they appealed to the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) to seize the land.

Although Bowers objected, OCIDA favored Central Utica’s proposed project, which it said would “result in the betterment of community prosperity within Oneida County.” Last February, after years of litigation, a New York appeals court upheld OCIDA’s decision, blessing the agency’s protectionist intervention.

Specifically, the court said, “the acquisition of the property will serve the public use of mitigating parking and traffic congestion, notwithstanding the fact that the need for the parking facility is, at least in part, due to the construction of a private medical facility.” In New York, it noted, “what qualifies as a public purpose or public use is broadly defined as encompassing virtually any project that may confer upon the public a benefit, utility, or advantage.”  Reason.com

In this case there is no broad public benefit – there is an agency trying to seize property to give to a different private entity.

Not exactly a mainstream topic… but worth reading about. Hopefully the Supremes will make a good decision. Now if they would tackle civil asset forfeiture…

Category: Supreme Court