Posted by Ilya Somin:
The Kelo Story - Jeff Benedict's Little Pink House:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_15-2009_02_21.shtml#1235208323


   People interested in property rights issues generally or Kelo v. City
   of New London specifically should definitely read Jeff Benedict's new
   book, [1]Little Pink House. Kelo [2]generated a broader political
   backlash than any other modern Supreme Court decision, and Benedict's
   book is by far the most thorough account of the development project
   and condemnations that led to case.

   Benedict doesn't focus much on the legal issues involved, which have
   already been beaten to death by a small army of legal scholars (myself
   included). He does, however, provide an in-depth account of the path
   by which the city of New London decided to condemn the plaintiff's
   homes and other property in order to promote "economic development"
   and the course of hte political and legal struggle between the two
   sides. Although Benedict's sympathies are clearly with the property
   owners, he also conducted numerous interviews with the lawyers and
   officials on the other side, so their perspective gets extensive
   coverage in the book. For example, he provides a fascinating portrait
   of Claire Gaudiani, president of Connecticut College and of the New
   London Development Corporation - the quasi-governmental entity that
   decided to go forward with the condemnations.

   Several points that emerge from Benedict's account are especially
   relevant to the broader debate over eminent domain sparked by Kelo.

   First, Benedict establishes that the NLDC and state government
   officials who undertook the condemnations genuinely believed that they
   were serving the public interest and did not see themselves as
   advancing the objectives of the Pfizer Corporation [3]which played a
   key role in instigating the takings and stood to benefit from them at
   the expense of the general public. I don't find this as comforting as
   many Kelo defenders seem to. As I have pointed out in various articles
   (e.g. - [4]this one), most people have a strong tendency to convince
   themselves that anything that serves their self-interest or political
   advantage is also in the public interest. For example, I fully accept
   that Gaudiani believed that the Kelo takings would benefit the
   community and advance the cause of "social justice," as she put it.
   But I am skeptical that she reached these conclusions entirely
   uninfluenced by the fact that her husband was a Pfizer vice president,
   and that successful implementation of the project would have advanced
   her own career. The understandable human tendency to conflate one's
   own interest with the public interest undercuts the viability of
   proposals to distinguish between permissible nad impermissible takings
   by focusing on the intent of government officials in order to
   determine if they were motivated by "favoritism" (as advocated by
   Justice Kennedy in his Kelo concurring opinion).

   Second, the book shows the ways in which the targets of condemnation
   are often determined by their political weakness. Although the NLDC
   publicly insisted that their economic development project required the
   government to take over every bit of the targeted Fort Trumbull
   neighborhood, in fact the pattern of condemnations was largely driven
   by the political influence or lack thereof of the property owners
   involved. One of the best parts of Benedict's book describes how the
   NLDC decided to spare property belonging to the Italian Dramatic Club
   - an all-male social club that had a lot of clout in New London
   politics in part because many local elites were members. Susette Kelo
   and her neighbors (most of whom were working or lower middle class)
   lacked similar influence and so were out of luck. More generally, the
   book shows the great difficulty of resisting eminent domain when those
   targeted are relatively lacking in political influence. Although Kelo
   and the other targeted property owners put it an enormous effort and
   were aided by experienced political activists, they couldn't make any
   political headway in resisting the condemnations until the Institute
   for Justice - a prominent libertarian public interest firm - filed a
   legal case on their behalf and helped bring the case to the attention
   of the national media. Their experience illustrates the limits of the
   political process as a means for protecting the property rights of the
   poor and politically weak. Few targeted property owners are as
   persistent and determined as Susette Kelo, and fewer still have the
   good fortune to attract extensive media attention to their plight.
   These realities weaken claims that we don't need judicial intervention
   or new laws limiting eminent domain authority because individual
   property owners can protect their rights in the political process on a
   case by case basis.

   Third, the book does an excellent job of portraying the human cost of
   going through an eminent domain case. Kelo and the other targeted
   property owners had their lives severely disrupted for several years,
   as they waited to see whether they would lose their homes. Perhaps
   even worse, the NLDC and the City subjected them to a variety of petty
   harrassment in order to force them to give in, including trying to
   charge them rent for living in their own homes, blowing up buildings
   on nearby lots (thereby spreading debris and dust on the resisting
   owners' land), and attempting to force out one of the owners' tenants
   in order to cut into his income. Realistically, few property owners of
   modest means can afford to go through such an ordeal. Moreover, the
   New London owners had the immense advantage of getting excellent pro
   bono legal representation from the Institute for Justice; they might
   not have been able to engage in a prolonged legeal battle otherwise.
   Such problems cut against claims that eminent domain abuse can be
   prevented by granting property owners stronger procedural rights. To
   the contrary, the longer and more complicated the legal procedures for
   eminent domain, the greater the cost of going through them for owners
   and the greater the incentive to give in to the government's demands
   rather than resist.

   Finally, Benedict highlights an often-overlooked aspect of Kelo-style
   "economic development" takings: their all too common failure to
   actually produce the economic development that supposedly justified
   them in the first place. As he points out, almost four years after the
   legal battle ended and nearly ten years after the NLDC's development
   project began, the City still hasn't built anything on the condemned
   land and there is no prospect of doing so anytime soon. So far, the
   net result of the NLDC's condemnation efforts has been to destroy an
   entire neighborhood and waste some $80 million in public funds. [5]The
   failure of the Kelo condemnations to actually benefit the local
   economy is a predictable result of the perverse incentives facing the
   NLDC and other similar agencies.

   Benedict's book does have a few shortcomings. In several places, he
   misstates a few of the legal issues involved in the case. For example,
   he claims that the Kelo decision "changed the rules" in favor of a
   more permissive standard for condemnations. In reality, as I explained
   in [6]this article (pp. 224-25), previous Supreme Court precedent was
   so lax as to allow the government condemn virtually any property for
   virtually any reason. The true effect of Kelo was not a "change in the
   rules," but heightened public awareness of the gross abuses permitted
   by existing legal doctrine.

   Despite a few such errors, Little Pink House is an impressive account
   of the events leading up to the most controversial property rights
   decision in Supreme Court history.

References

   1. http://www.amazon.com/Little-Pink-House-Defiance-Courage/dp/0446508624
   2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976298
   3. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_23-2005_10_29.shtml#1130160017
   4. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874865
   5. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_09-2007_12_15.shtml#1197522227
   6. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874865

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to