Case summary
The main question that arises, in this case, is whether a state’s decision to take property for the ostensible purpose of economic development satisfies the ‘public use’ requirement of the 5th Amendment. While on one hand, it is quite possible that powerful state agencies could use the weapon of “eminent domain” on minority landowners in a bid to grab their land holdings, it is also possible that obdurate landowners could stand in the way of major development programs. (Larson, 2004).
In this case, San Francisco Development Corporation (SFDC) wanted to take over a particular stretch of land for development purposes. The applicants, 9 landowners, objected and filed a suit during 1999. At the Bench Trial, the Court passed a restraining order of the First part of the land but refused to provide the plaintiff with possession of the second part of the property. When both the parties went to higher Court, the Supreme Court passed orders. “The Court reversed for the first part of the land and affirmed as to the second part – allowing the state to take all of the condemned land.” (Legal environment of business, n.d., p.1). Robinson and Others sought a writ of certiorari, which means, requesting a higher court to order a lower court to “review” a judicial order passed by the latter. (Certiorari, 2009).
At this stage, John Stevens CJ, citing the 1954 case of Berman v. Parker, 368 U.S. 26 (1954), upheld the verdict of the Supreme Court. In simple terms, he argued that courts do not have jurisdiction to question the propriety of bodies, and thus needed to abide by it. He also gave the verdict that when economic development is the primary driver of such development, the question of a private or public good does not arise. However, Thomas J chose to dissent and took recourse in the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution. He interpreted that even if due just compensation were forthcoming, in the event of property owners not willing to sell their portions, there would be no legal propriety to enjoin them to sell their shares under any kind of duress. He rejected the stand taken by the Supreme Court on this issue.
Plaintiffs and defendants of this case
The nine landowners are the petitioners in this case. They include, inter alia, Mr. Robinson, Ms. Pamela Martin, the Beardsley’s, etc. The defendants, in this case, are “the city’s development agency known as San Francisco Development Corporation (SFDC). “(Legal environment of business, n.d., p.1).
Arguments were put forth by both the plaintiffs and defendants
The justifications presented by the City to effectuate the development plan were to create an additional thousand employment opportunities, augment revenues and also rejuvenate the present distressed economic state of the “community.” (Legal environment of business, n.d., p.1).
The first aspect that comes to mind is that the achievement of economic development need not always be the motive or basis for public purpose. Since the main element that is being drawn in here is that of pursuing public purpose, these actions of condemnation may best serve private interests rather than a public one. It is like borrowing from Pete to pay Paul. The new developments that would spring up would also be owned by private interests and thus no major public purpose would be served. If the public purpose were true to be served, it would be in terms of public utility facilities that could inure for the public. However, we shall now consider Berman v. Parker, 368 U.S. 26 (1954) case. (Kelo v. City of New London, 2007).
However, in this case, Douglas, J., deemed it necessary to take an overall view of the entire project and refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area “must be planned as a whole for the plan to be successful.” (Legal environment of business, n.d., p.2).
Again, it is not always the public systems that could ensure the good of citizens. Even some private enterprises may be as good, if not better, in protecting public interests than public corporations.
Is the purchase and development of private property against public policy, or illegal?
If the city is the legal owner of the said property and sells it for private development, there is no violation of the Fifth Amendment. But if the property were to be owned by private persons, who are unwilling to sell it (even with the enticement of due just and reasonable compensation) then it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states, inter alia, that no one could, among other things, “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Mount, 2009, Amendment 5-Trial and Punishment, para.1). The law cannot compel any person to part with any kind of property which he does not wish to sell in the first place, unless it is part of a larger deal for the overall good of the community, or to meet large scale societal objectives.
Conclusion
The exercise of eminent domain would, in effect detrimentally impact “disproportionately” on the poorer strata of society. No amount of compensation could replace the “subjective” value of their holdings or “indignity” of being removed from places where they have been staying for decades together. (Legal environment of business, n.d.).
They may not be able to benefit from such schemes. Moreover, there are also real risks that they would be dispossessed of their only source of livelihood and place them in harsher economic situations. When properties are destroyed and reconstructions made only to cater to private interests, it ceases to have any kind of public utility or value.
Reference
Certiorari. (2009). The Free Dictionary by Farlex. Web.
Kelo v. City of New London: Is eminent domain for economic development public use or public abuse?. (2007). Journal of Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Issues. Goliath: Business Knowledge on Demand. Web.
Larson, A. (2004). Eminent domain. Expert Law. Web.
Legal environment of business: Take-home exam: Robinson v. City of San Francisco. (n.d.).
Mount, S. (2009). The United States Constitution: Amendment 5-Trial and Punishment: Compensation for takings. U.S. Constitution Online. Web.