If the Supreme Court does not use this case to sharply limit -- if not completely overturn -- the Kelo decision, then private property means nothing and eminent domain will have become nothing more than a shake-down tool.

Claiming he is the victim of legalized extortion carried out under eminent domain powers, a landowner in New York is asking the Supreme Court to hear his case.

Landowner Bart Didden claims in a petition that a developer convinced the village of Port Chester, N.Y., to seize his land through eminent domain after Didden had refused to pay the developer $800,000.

As part of a 1999 redevelopment plan, the council had designated Didden's land as a "redevelopment area." This gives the council the power to condemn the property and hand it over to a developer of its choice.

Didden planned to build a CVS Pharmacy on the site, but the developer, Gregory Wasser of G&S Investors, wanted to build a Walgreens there. According to the petition, Wasser threatened to convince officials to condemn Didden's land under eminent domain if Didden did not pay him $800,000 or make him a 50 percent partner in the CVS project.

Didden says he refused the offer on Nov. 5, 2003. On Nov. 6, 2003, the village of Port Chester filed a condemnation petition to acquire the land and transfer the lease to G&S to construct a Walgreens.

Didden calls the case "extortion through the abuse of eminent domain" justified by the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment "takings clause" allows the government to condemn private property for redevelopment purposes.

"Essentially, the courts have ruled Kelo turns any redevelopment zone into a Constitution-free zone for property owners confronted by politically connected developers," Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said in a statement.

Frankly, we simply need to go a step further, and ban the use of eminent domain in any case where the land will leave government hands in less than 50 years -- or at least permitting land-owners and their heirs the right to repurchase their property for $1 if the land is to be turned over for private development in any time period less than half a century.

And if not, we simply need the Supreme Court to declare that private property, as understood by Americans since the founding of the Republic, no longer exists in this country.

Posted by: Greg at 08:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.