Private vs. Public land: Whose property right?

The governmental power upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London — the power to take private property for private use — does not exist for state and local government in Washington, and people here should be glad it does not.

The decision interpreted the part of the Fifth Amendment that says: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The town of New London, Conn., condemned private homes to build private offices, private housing, a private hotel and a private pharmaceuticals plant. Homeowners sued, arguing that these enterprises did not qualify as a "public use." In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court said it did qualify because there was a public benefit. There is always some public benefit. The first beneficiaries, however, will be private.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that they "are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." In this case, one of them was the drug company Pfizer.

At the losing end of these forced transactions are homeowners who don't want to sell. Justice Clarence Thomas, another dissenter, said these are disproportionately likely to be African Americans, who are more likely to own properties the government wants cleared away. But their rights to their homes are supposed to be the same as anyoneelse's.

This sort of "economic development" is generally banned in Washington. Our 1889 constitution says, with a short list of exceptions: "Private property shall not be taken for private use."

Your house cannot be condemned for a Costco, a Nordstrom or a Sheraton Hotel. Under the rules of Connecticut, it could.

The town of New London claimed that its seizure of property was necessary for economic development.

We disagree. In this state, we promote economic development without it.