Guest
Contributor
Timothy
M. Sandefur
Timothy
Sandefur is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation which
filed a friend of the court brief in Wayne County v. Hathcock.[go
to Guest index]
 Poletown
Condemnation
Case Gets a Deserved Wrecking Ball...
[Timothy M. Sandefur] 8/24/04
One writer
called it "the Dresden of eminent
domain cases."
Two decades ago, Detroit's Poletown neighborhood was leveled
to make way for a General Motors Corp. auto plant. Turned to
rubble was an area of more than 1,200 homes, 140 businesses,
six churches, and a hospital.
What was hailed as progress by some civic movers and shakers
-- coincidentally, they tended to reside in other neighborhoods
-- was seen somewhat differently by the blue collar homeowners
who were forced to clear out of Poletown. Many of the residents
sued, but the wrecking balls were blessed by the Michigan Supreme
Court in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit. This
1981 decision was immediately recognized as a turning point in
American eminent domain law.
Homeowners
argued that the Michigan Constitution allows government to
take property only for a "public use" – e.g.,
a public road, firehouse, or school.
But the Poletown
court disagreed: It gave the word "public" a
slippery and expansive definition -- stretching it to cover projects
clearly owned and operated for private gain. Because the GM plant
would create jobs, the court reasoned that condemning people's
homes at the behest of the auto giant was "public" enough.
Now, 23 years later, the Michigan Supreme Court has recognized
that Poletown was a mistake. In a case concerning Wayne County's
attempt to condemn 1,300 acres near Detroit Metro Airport so
private interests can build an office park, the court took the
occasion to reverse Poletown and affirm that eminent domain should
be used only to take property for the use of the public, not
for the use of private corporations.
The justices recognized that the years have not been good to
Poletown's reputation. A long series of controversial government
land grabs have looked to that case for inspiration. Typically
in these schemes, government muscle is flexed on behalf of the
prosperous and powerful, while the property owners who get muscled
out are not rich or politically connected.
For instance, Mississippi recently tried to condemn 23 acres
of minority owned land to give to the Nissan Corp. Atlantic City,
New Jersey, tried to take a widow's house so a Donald Trump casino
could put up a parking lot. And in California, the Cty of Cypress
condemned church land to give Costco another store site.
Sometimes a business is asked -- or forced -- to move aside
for a more politically favored enterprise. Merriam, Kansas, recently
condemned a Toyota dealership to sell the land to a BMW dealer.
Mesa, Arizona, tried to transfer land owned by an auto shop to
a hardware store.
The thinking seems to be that if a property owner isn't paying
enough taxes, the city should sell their property to richer people
who can pay more.
One problem
with giving city planners a broad license to label property
transfers as "public uses" is
that while the bureaucrats can promise a lot, they can't guarantee
it. Some
urban analysts now believe the Poletown teardown, and its dispersal
of homeowners, hastened the decline of Detroit's core business
region through the 1980s.
The Michigan
Supreme Court's reversal of Poletown was consistent with precedents
that preceded that infamous
case. A long line
of decisions prior to 1981 rejected attempts to distort the concept
of "public use." As early as 1877, the state Supreme
Court explained that the term cannot apply to every enterprise
or initiative that benefits the public in any way. If every project
that indirectly benefits the public is a "public use," government
could rationalize its way to taking citizens' property for any
business interest that asks.
Worse, influential groups can rig the system. If government
can take property from some people and give it to others, those
with the best lobbyists will win, and property rights will be
subject to the whims of politicians and the bidding of interest
groups. Government doesn't condemn wealthy neighborhoods or the
homes of powerful politicians; it takes land from people who
have little political pull.
Poletown-style planning would have horrified the authors of
the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. They understood how the
right to own property is essential for the protection of other
freedoms. Indeed, it is especially important to defend the property
rights of the poor and marginalized minorities who have less
political influence.
This is why Pacific Legal Foundation urged Michigan's high court
to reconsider Poletown -- and now congratulates the court for
returning to the clear intent of the Constitution: Government's
authority to take private property should be strictly and carefully
restrained.
This way,
Michiganders won't hold their homes at the mercy of lobbyists
and politicians. tRO
§
|
