Supreme Court's Kelo Decision Not Good for Blacks

Kelo v. City of New London, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a case involving the economically deprived city of New London, Connecticut, should be a wake-up call to all politicians representing low-income communities and property owners regardless of neighborhood.

The issue is eminent domain and the term “public use,” which the court is re-defining very broadly. The Kelo decision gives state and local governments permission to use eminent domain to condemn one person’s private property and turn it over to other private owners, in the name of promoting economic rejuvenation in distressed areas of the city.

For low- and middle-income minority communities, this means private homes connected to a distressed area can be devalued and taken if a developer wants additional land to enlarge an area of economic rejuvenation, even if some of the space is for private use rather than public use.

The U.S. Constitution plainly allows local governments to take control of private property for “public use” after payment of just compensation. But what happens if the homeowners refuse to sell their property, as happened in New London?

Private property ownership is good for individuals and for society as a whole, and government should preserve it but not interfere in its distribution. The 5-to-4 decision by the Supreme Court against Susette Kelo and her fellow plaintiffs, and in favor of the city of New London, is controversial because private property was redistributed, and not all of the property seized will get “public use.”

So we have now a new debate over the term “public use,” which seems now to include private economic development that may enhance a city’s tax base and create jobs.

The Kelo decision was the result of decades of economic decline. The end result was that the state of Connecticut deemed New London a “distressed” city, which prompted state and local officials to target it, and particularly the waterfront community of Fort Trumbull, for economic revitalization.

Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the liberal justices of the court, wrote that the city was “projecting to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, an increase in taxes and would revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was joined in a strong dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. She wrote, “The beneficiaries [of this decision] are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

O’Connor’s statement alone should have led the Congressional Black Caucus to strongly oppose the decision, which allows any city to collude with corporate interests to deprive individual Americans of their property.

In a separate dissent, Thomas noted the decision would likely result in “new urban renewal projects that have historically displaced minorities, the elderly and the poor.” Washington, DC Mayor Anthony Williams--who praised the court’s decision--will have the opportunity to evict small businesses and homeowners later this year to build a new, privately held baseball stadium.

Kelo is a clear case of liberal judges harming the economic future of African Americans with a wrong-headed decision.

Lee H. Walker (lwalker@newcoalition.org) is columnist and member of the editorial board of the Chicago Defender, which published this editorial on July 11. He is president of The New Coalition for Economic and Social Change and a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.