May 23, 2006
RALEIGH – Last year’s landmark Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court opened people’s eyes about government taking property for economic development. A new John Locke Foundation Spotlight shows many other ways the state and local governments can prey on private property.
The problems with government takings of private property extend beyond the notorious “economic development takings” allowed under Kelo v. City of New London, said report author Daren Bakst, legal and regulatory policy analyst for the John Locke Foundation. That’s why North Carolinians need comprehensive laws now to prevent abuse of eminent domain.
Bakst’s report highlighted ten ways governments abuse eminent domain to take private property. For example, he said, planners could use clever map drawing to take pristine property in a “blighted area.” Also, thanks to a 1998 N.C. appeals court ruling, the government doesn’t have to tell the landowner why his property was seized while other, nearby property was left undisturbed.
“All the law requires is for two-thirds of the area to be blighted,” Bakst said. “So desirable properties near blighted properties are easy pickings.”
If that’s not easy enough, Bakst said, N.C. law allows government to seize property if it forecasts that the property will become blighted or will cause economic harm in the future.
“Being able to take property supposedly to avoid future problems essentially allows governments to take whatever property they want,” Bakst said.
Governments can also use the threat of taking property to push home-owners into accepting unfair terms of sale, Bakst said.
“Once a government wishes to seize someone’s property, it has all the advantages,” Bakst said. “The deck is so stacked against the homeowner that the threat of seizure if the owner refuses to sell doesn’t even need to be legal. It can be a bluff.”
State law could also lead to governments taking property under false pretenses. A city could seize property for a public project that falls through and not have to give the property back to the original owner, Bakst said. They could demolish the property and lease it to another — as the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority has done with FedEx.
They could even seize property even after the original public-use justification for the taking is over, Bakst said. “The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) continues to seize private property for a light rail system when that proposal is practically dead,” Bakst said.
“State law does a poor job of protecting North Carolinians from eminent domain abuse,” Bakst said. “The solution to this intrusion against a basic human right is an explicit and detailed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution.”
Daren Bakst’s Spotlight paper, “Your Home Is Their Castle: Ten Simple Ways Governments Can Abuse Eminent Domain,” is at the Locke Foundation’s web site. For more information, please contact Daren Bakst at (919) 828-3876 or [email protected]. To arrange an interview, contact JLF communications director Mitch Kokai at (919) 306-8736 or [email protected].