Brian Bowers and his business partner Mike Licata planned to build medical office space across the street from a new hospital in downtown Utica, New York.
The Oneida County Industrial Development Authority agreed to take over the land for use as a parking lot by a competing company next door, invalidating the plan. The land acquisition was approved by the state Court of Appeals last February.
The U.S. Supreme Court invited such abuse in its 2005 decision Kelo v. City of New London, which held that the transfer of property from one private owner to another promotes economic development. welcomed the use of prominent land.
Bowers' case gives judges another chance to reconsider the widely criticized decision, which put property rights at risk by allowing government officials to reallocate property rights to politically advantaged companies. giving.
The Institute for Justice, which represents Bowers, is asking the Supreme Court to clarify the limits of that license.
Alternatively, the court should overturn Mr. Kelo, who was “wrong on the day it was handed down,” he said.
The Fifth Amendment imposes two restrictions on the government's acquisition of private property. One is that it must be accompanied by “just compensation,” and the other is that it must be for “public use.”
However, the New York State Court of Appeals has held that “qualifying as a public purpose or public use is broadly defined to include virtually any project that is likely to confer benefit, utility, or advantage to the public. ” he pointed out.
In this case, the court stated that “the acquisition of the land serves the public use of parking and alleviating traffic congestion.”
Bowers argues that such reasoning is questionable even under the Kelo administration.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in Kelo, wrote that the condemnation of homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn., was based on a “carefully considered” development plan and likely ” It will create more than 1,000 homes.” “Increased jobs,” “increased taxes and other revenues,” “revitalized economically distressed cities” (none of which actually happened).
In contrast, in the case of Bowers, OCIDA did not implement a “development plan.” It simply imposed the judgment that the parking lot could be used more effectively as his property than the office building he was planning to open.
Stevens said New London “cannot be allowed to expropriate property in the name of a mere public purpose, when the actual purpose was to confer a private benefit.”
But he noted that the city adopted the plan without knowing exactly which new owners would benefit from it.
“Of course, the government aproperty for the benefit of the private interests of B When the true identity of B was unknown,” Stevens wrote.
In Bowers' case, by contrast, the government could do just that because Central New York Cardiology, the primary beneficiary of the foreclosure, is a private company that makes money by limiting the supply of medical office space. It's easy to blame someone for doing something.
“Taking our property was not in the public interest,” Bowers said. “It was to benefit a competitor.”
Dissenting in the Kelo case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, “All private property is now dispossessed insofar as it may be upgraded, that is, insofar as it is given to the owners who use it in some sense.'' , is at risk of being transferred to another private owner.” In the process, the Legislature advances what it deems more beneficial to the people. ”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a separate dissenting opinion that if the court followed the “most natural interpretation” of “public use,” that is, “property can only be taken if the government owns it.” The public has a legal right to use the property, rather than acquiring it for public purposes or needs. ”
In addition to Thomas, three other current members of the court, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, have indicated they favor scaling back Kelo's decision or overturning it entirely. are.
Given the overtly protectionist nature of Utica's land grab, the Bowers case seems like a good opportunity to do so.
Jacob Salam is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
