The SCOTUS decision on Eminent Domain

Over at Running Scared yesterday Mu had a post, Supreme Court Legalizes highway robbery, where he discusses the Supreme Court decision eminent domain. Our very own Jazz and Bill in DC duke it out in the comments section and it's worth a read.

My Thoughts

This is as much a philosophical question as a legal one. The real question is what does it mean to "own" property? I "own" a piece of property in a small city outside of Portland. The property is zoned single family residence which means all I can do with that property is build a house. The restrictions go further. If I want to change the outside appearance of that house, paint, new siding, new roof etc., it must be approved by the city. My landscaping must follow "guidelines". If I want to plant a tree or cut one down I must get approval. I am required to keep my property landscaped and my trees trimmed; if I don't the city will do it for me and send me a bill. At anytime the city can re-zone my property for another use, that is decide that my property would be better suited for multi-family dwellings or commercial uses. Although I may find these restrictions inconvenient at times it maintains the livablility of my neighborhood and keeps my property value up.

One of the things that makes the Portland area a nice place to live are the multiple land use regulations. That said, what does it really mean to "own" property. It means the right to use that property in a way that the community decides is in the community's best interest. When eminent domain is used we often hear the word confiscate. The property is not confiscated, you can be forced to sell your rights to the property for the fair market value of those rights.

Can eminent domain be mis-used? Certainly, but that is something that should be addressed on the local level. Was the New London, Connecticut case a mis-use of eminent domain? I don't know but that is not what the Supreme Court was asked to decide.

The question that was decided was; what does it mean to own property? The answer is not as much as some would like.

Update
In the comments section of Jazz's morning post on this Bill in DC presents a quote from the majority opinion that would indicate that they have not given local government a "blank check" to use eminent domain.

"It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use."